One of the worst tendencies of American media is boasting about how independent they are, and then granting the most obsequious access to our worst tyrannical enemies. CNN boss Jeff Zucker calls Fox News "state-run TV," then acts like state-run TV for our enemies in Iran. On Friday night, CNN host Erin Burnett threw softballs at Iran's representative to the UN that she would never toss at Trump administration officials.

For example, Burnett started with these open-ended softballs to Majid Ravanchi:

With these sudden developments, obviously, the entire world is focused on this story. When you look at what happened here, was this a declaration of war?... So you say it is tantamount to opening a war against Iran. President Trump today said, his words, "We took action to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war." What do you say President Trump, Mr. Ambassador?

Then she cued up the Iranian thug to knock the American president's credibility:

BURNETT: So President Trump says he is not looking for regime change in Iran. He also said that today, do you believe him on that? Obviously, John Bolton, the former National Security adviser, said the opposite, as he has said many times before, but when President Trump says this is not about regime change, is he telling the truth?



RAVANCHI: What matters is the U.S. deeds, not the words. What they are doing against the Iranians are exactly to put lots of pressure on the Iranian people to stand up, and that is contravention of U.S. obligations based on international law.



BURNETT: So when you say tantamount to war, an act of war, the words that you used, Ambassador Ravanchi, the Supreme Leader of Iran today said or vowed severe revenge, and his other words were a harsh retaliation to what he calls the criminals who perpetrated this attack, the Americans. So what does that mean? If you're going to have revenge, retaliation to an act of war? Is that a war?

Perhaps the worst question is something most American journalists are suggesting, that there is some moral equivalence between a terrorist like Soleimani and Mike Pence, or Mike Pompeo:

Americans can understand though what the reaction would be, if someone that influential were killed here or killed in another country, but someone who was let's say, the Chief of the C.I.A., the Defense Secretary or even a Vice President. Does this death change the game completely between Iran and the United States?

Overall, we agree with David Marcus at The Federalist:

How on earth can one interview the Iranian ambassador without asking about Iranian support for a violent attack on an American embassy last week? Or how about an attack on a base that left an American contractor dead? Or the shooting down of an American drone over international waters? Time and again in the interview Ravanchi claimed that by killing Soleimani the US had moved from an economic war (pulling out of the Iran Deal) to a military war. But Iran has engaged in military actions against America and American interest for months now. The network that fatuously insists they are all about the facts allowed the ambassador to flat out lie to the their viewers without the least bit of resistance. This is simply journalistic malpractice at best. At worst, it is giving comfort to an enemy dedicated to the destruction of the United States (Death to America) by handing over the CNN platform for the pushing of propaganda, including failing to mention at all the Iranian regime’s brutal and murderous crackdown on protesters in its own country last month.

Later, Burnett turned to CNN analysts Jim Clapper and Andrew McCabe -- or as she kept calling them, "Director Clapper" and "Deputy Director McCabe" -- to review what Trump did, and respond to her softball interview.

PS: Marcus also noted that Burnett slammed Trump from the opposite direction, because CNN always takes the anti-Trump position, backwards and forwards.