A CNN article with a very compelling headline, syndicated to dozens of websites, rocketed across social media on Saturday, triggering a viral alert and making the CNN home page. And it conveniently reinforced CNN’s days-long narrative that in killing Qasem Soleimani, President Donald Trump has not only escalated the tenuous situation in Iraq, but dramatically increased the specific and imminent risk to Americans from Iran, to the dismay and even disgruntlement of top officials, and even the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

The article purports to report a dire warning from the Trump administration (at large) to congress (et al) that Iran is “expected” to attack American targets any day. In keeping with the narrative.

Here is an image from the headline.

The clear implication is not merely that this was a bad move that’s increased the danger for Americans, or even that it is so sudden and bad that the Trump administration had to prepare congress for the fallout, but that this reality is contrary to public statements from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other that the action has made Americans safer.

That point of view is the object of a great deal of CNN’s coverage the last few days, if not the entirety of it.

Al least, the entirety excluding when they (and MSNBC) are questioning the judgment and competence of America’s intelligence gathering outright.

But what exactly is IN this report, with this headline, which purports to break the news that Congress is being warned by the Trump administration that there is imminent retaliation?

The lede is equally alarming.

The Trump administration has warned members of Congress that Iran is expected to retaliate against the US “within weeks” for the strike that killed Qasem Soleimani even as they failed to convince some that the operation was merited due to an imminent threat against American lives.

But then you get down into the body. Here are some quotes from the article, via screenshot in case of edits.

On the topic of the timeline, “within weeks” we find an official warned that they “couldn’t rule out retaliation within the next few weeks — or even months.” Couldn’t rule out. Or even months. Not exactly “expected to retaliate” as the first paragraph asserts, or limited to “within weeks” as the headline tried to convince us, is it?

But perhaps “Trump administration warns congress that it can’t rule out possible retaliation within weeks or months based on past experience” isn’t as clicky of a headline for this business of news.

The report also prominently features a quote from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark Milley, which has been aired in nearly every hour of air time on CNN on Saturday, and has been repeated endlessly on social media by CNN contributors and hosts, as well as those who listen and repeat what CNN reports.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley publicly addressed the issue of potential retaliation from Iran Friday. When asked whether there is now a risk to US safety in the region, Milley bluntly said, “Damn right there is risk.”

The specific wording here is very important. Note that CNN says Milley “addressed the issue of potential retaliation” and that he was answering a question about whether there is NOW a risk to US safety in the region. NOW is an important choice here.

Again, in keeping with the overt narrative thread from CNN, this paragraph is designed to make you believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs exclaimed with some emotion that Trump has put Americans at risk by his actions. That is nearly the sole item of CNN’s coverage for days now.

But here is what Milley actually said, as reported by ABC News.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told a small group of reporters on Friday that within the last 90 days Kata’ib Hezbollah, aka KH, an Iranian-backed militia, organized a sophisticated campaign against U.S. and coalition forces that increased in intensity, culminating with the Dec. 27 attack on the Iraqi base near Kirkuk that killed a U.S. civilian contractor and wounded several U.S. and Iraqi forces. It was “designed and intended to kill, and [Soleimani] approved it,” Milley said. “I know that 100 percent.” Milley said that the trigger for the drone strike that killed Soleimani was “clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a significant campaign of violence against the United States in the days, weeks, and months,” and that the administration would have been “culpably negligent” if it didn’t act.

That’s Milley agreeing with and supporting the rationale for the decision to act, if you’re not clear, contrary to the implication of CNN.

And there’s more:

Milley said the administration fully comprehends the strategic risks and consequences of killing Soleimani but “risks of inaction exceeded risks of action.”

“Risks of inaction exceeded risks of action.” Obviously this is paramount. CNN reported that Milley said NOW there’s a risk. “Damn right,” right?

Well actually: “Is there risk? Damn right, there is risk, but we’re mitigating it.”

“Officials from the National Security Council, State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies echoed that concern during classified briefings Friday,” the article reads, building off the misleading framing of Milley’s quote to suggest Friday’s classified briefings, which are conducted routinely and particularly after events of significance (meaning it wasn’t an unusual alarm being sounded on Friday when they offered these briefings to some members of congress.) More specific briefings are expected, though.

Department of Homeland Security officials are expected to brief lawmakers in coming days on domestic threats from Iran and will be on heightened alert over the next several weeks and months in anticipation of Iranian retaliation.

That’s where the article went into the above quoted material.

National security officials were blunt as they described a range of retaliatory possibilities inside the US and abroad. The goal, one administration official familiar with the briefing said, was to make sure lawmakers were “cleared-eyed” about the possibilities for Iranian retaliation and that nothing was sugar coated. The official told CNN that the administration wanted to make it clear it couldn’t rule out retaliation within the next few weeks — or even months — given how Iran historically has responded to what it views as acts of aggression against the regime.

So Milley said there is a risk, but that we are mitigating that risk. He said the risk of not acting was GREATER than the risk of acting. And the intelligence briefings, which were not a sudden, emergency briefing, did not state that the administration “expects” retaliation “within weeks” as CNN reported, but instead that officials “couldn’t rule out” there’d be retaliation “within weeks or months.”

The article, and on-air report, inflated small pieces and excerpts and sewed them together to concoct a story that It was designed to mislead the reader, crafted to create the impression the the Joint Chiefs are dismayed at a new and increased risk, that they are so dismayed that the administration sent an army of officials to warn Congress that there will be a huge attack on Americans any day now.

But that’s not what happened, and the best example of why that is not the case comes from a different CNN report, from Saturday afternoon.

Why this report contradicts their own earlier reporting is a mystery. Why the anchor reversed the quote at the end of that clip is a mystery as well, and although it could have just been a stumbling over the wording, the uncorrected reversal of Milley’s quote about which risk outweighs which is yet another misinformation moment from CNN, which has been absolutely deluging the airwaves with misinformation for two days.

And by the way, at the time of this post, despite that on-air report, this is what the front page of CNN looks like.

It is alarmism in purest form. What used to be known as “sensationalism” or even “yellow journalism,” and it has been CNN’s bread and butter for a while now. Not to mention what are, by definition, conspiracy theories.

CNN routinely talks about the terrible, mislaid mistrust of media under Trump, yet never points their piercing gaze within. Their own media “critic” correspondent Brian Stelter spends the vast majority of his time complaining about Fox News, and most of the non-Fox time complaining about how unfair people are to the media. Maybe if Stelter spent even half a second a day wondering if his own network is living up to the mighty task of journalism there wouldn’t be so many problems.

But while Trump is in office, and CNN dedicated to removing him, fat chance of that inward look ever happening.

UPDATE: CNN’s Brian Stelter writes that he is not a media critic, but in fact the network’s Media Correspondent. We note here the correction.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.