SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
corporate media
'What Stage of Corporate Media Is This?': CNBC Anchor Mulls Investor 'Upside' of Trump Genocide Threat
One observer called Sara Eisen's Iran War remarks a "glorious time capsule of this broken moment we are in."
Apr 09, 2026
CNBC anchor Sara Eisen was dragged on social media this week for on-air comments asking whether US President Donald Trump's threat to destroy Iran's civilization is good for investors.
As the US-Israeli war of choice on Iran and the Iranian military's closure of the Strait of Hormuz—through which around 20% of the world's oil is shipped—fueled volatility in global markets, Trump issued an ultimatum to Tehran: reach an agreement to reopen the vital waterway by Tuesday night, or “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again."
While much of the world recoiled in horror at Trump's explicitly genocidal threat, Eisen, who co-hosts the cable business news network's "Squawk on the Street" program, opted for a different angle.
“This deadline that President Trump has set, 8:00 pm, has threatened to destroy a civilization. How does an investor process that?" she asked Tuesday. "Is it a bigger upside risk or downside risk?”
Reactions ranged from incredulity to outrage.
Journalist and writer Charlie Warzel called Eisen's remarks a "glorious time capsule of this broken moment we are in."
David Sirota—whose Oscar-nominated 2021 satirical comedy Don't Look Up skewers vapid TV hosts who filter the existential threat of an imminent comet impacting Earth through a profit-driven lens—asked, "What stage of corporate media is this?"
(Video by YouTube)
Eisen's comments are part of a societal landscape in which the price of a gallon of gasoline is a bigger concern for Americans than the US-Israeli slaughter of hundreds of Iranian children.
Numerous news and analysis articles lauded the profit potential of the Iran war. So have some Republican politicians.
“When this regime goes down, we’re gonna have a new Mideast,” US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News last month. “We’re gonna make a ton of money."
Big Oil—which invested $445 million in electing Trump and other Republicans in 2024—and fossil fuel executives are doing just that, cashing in on the war with record-setting stock sales.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Search for US Airman Continues, Trump Issues Latest 'Countdown to Massive War Crimes'
The president demanded once again that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz and said that "all Hell will reign down" on the country if officials don't "make a deal."
Apr 04, 2026
As the US military's frantic search continued Saturday for an airman who was aboard an F-15E fighter jet when it was downed by Iranian forces a day earlier, and analysts and Iranian media alike suggested the Trump administration has lost control of its war against Iran, President Donald Trump issued his latest threat against the country—once again appearing to threaten tens of millions of Iranians with war crimes.
Renewing his demand that Iran "MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT," the president said he was giving the Iranian government "48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them," appearing to confuse the word "reign" with "rain."
"Time is running out," said Trump in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.
In his post, Trump did not directly address the ongoing search for the airman, who was one of two who ejected from the fighter jet when Iran reportedly used new air defense systems to shoot down the plane. One crew member was found and rescued on Friday.
Iranian officials were also looking for the missing airman on Saturday, raising concerns that the service member could be taken as a hostage and used as leverage.
The president has said little about the ongoing search, but spoke briefly to The Independent in a phone call Saturday about the possibility that Iran could find the service member first.
"We hope that’s not going to happen,” he said.
Trump's comments on social media, meanwhile, appeared to signal "a countdown to massive war crimes," said New York University law professor Ryan Goodman.
The president has also previously warned Iran with an ultimatum, only to delay the threatened action. He said on March 22 that the US would "hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!" if officials did not reopen the strait—prompting critics to condemn him as a "maniacal tyrant."
The March 22 threat was likely a reference to Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, the vicinity of which was struck by a projectile on Saturday, prompting condemnation from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Human rights experts have repeated warnings in recent weeks that striking power plants would constitute war crimes.
At least five people were killed and 170 were injured in airstrikes on a petrochemical hub in Iran's Khuzestan province on Saturday morning, in addition to the Bushehr attack.
After his initial threat, Trump later said direct strikes on energy infrastructure would not be launched until April 6, and demanded that Iran open the key waterway before then.
Despite Trump's increasingly belligerent threats of "hell" and destruction of civilian infrastructure, a number of media critics noted on Saturday that mainstream Western news outlets including The New York Times, The Economist, and Bloomberg described Iran's use of air defense systems to shoot down US war planes involved in the invasion as an "escalation from Iran's leadership."
"Does Iran have a right to defend itself? Does Palestine? Does Lebanon?" asked commentator Hasan Piker, noting that the US and Israel have claimed they launched the invasion of Iran to "defend" themselves against an imminent attack, contrary to US intelligence analysis. "Or is it just Israel and America who get to claim self-defense as they engage in wars of conquest?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Blast 'Clueless' New York Times for Dismissive Coverage of Historic No Kings Protests
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
Mar 29, 2026
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular