We've already picked on CNN's Brian Stelter once today. He went on-air Thursday morning to do some clean-up about CNN's reporting that Operation Midnight Hammer was a failure in setting back Iran's nuclear program more than a few weeks. “CNN did not report that this mission was a failure," he explained. "We just don't know all the facts yet." Um, we're not pro journalists, but isn't the idea to get the facts first and then report on them?

As our own Sam J. reported earlier, Russian disinformation truther "Fusion" Natasha Betrand posted earlier about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's press conference this morning, writing that after Gen. Dan Caine had spoken, "Hegseth then took over and slammed the media." Damn right he did. "There was a great deal of irresponsible reporting based on leaks of preliminary information in low confidence. Again, when someone leaks something, they do it with an agenda."

Stelter was moved to do a piece for his "Reliable Sources" newsletter about how journalists are there to report, not cheerlead. Forgive that the media might support the American military and its mission, and hope for its success.

Stelter writes:

Journalists ask questions, vet the answers and report the results to the public. That’s pretty much the job description. But the Trump administration is claiming that it’s unpatriotic to do so. Today President Trump is pushing for firings and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is insulting journalists to their faces.

Let's be clear: Journalists are not the main story here. The US strikes on Iran are the main story. The public is still awaiting a clearer picture of the strikes' impact, despite Trump's insistence on Saturday and ever since that Iran's nuclear enrichment sites were "totally obliterated."

…

Indeed, history is replete with proof that it is imperative to question official accounts. It's patriotic. "What's unpatriotic is trying to scare the press into silence," media historian Brian Rosenwald says.

Yes, journalists ask questions. The problem is that they already have the answers written in their heads … they just ask questions later as a formality. 

Both CNN and The New York Times have issued statements defending their accurate reporting about the early US intel assessment that undercut Trump's "obliterated" claims. The reporting has been credibly sourced and cautious.

Credibly sourced? From the same people who reported that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation? That was credibly sourced to 51 former members of the intelligence community, whose letter was Antony Blinken's idea. Does it occur to Stelter that maybe people who anonymously leak to the press have an agenda? And not a patriotic one.

Is that why CNN stealth-edited low confidence and preliminary into its original story?

Stelter's former colleague assured us that journalists don't root for a side.