Gaslight Gazette (June 23, 2025)
No Kings, No Truth, No Peace—Just Manufactured Mayhem
The Gaslight Gazette, a biweekly dispatch from the front lines of the information war, uses a critical media lens to examine stories and narratives in the news. The goal? To demonstrate what news literacy looks like when applied to current headlines—and to spotlight the falsehoods and propaganda that shape discourse in American media. Think of it as your BS firewall: a no-spin zone where lies get torched and truth takes the mic.
Can’t see the whole thing? This newsletter’s a big one — If your email won’t support it, click here for the full version
💀FAKE NEWS
This section chronicles some of the most pressing examples of disinformation and fake news from the previous two weeks. I define fake news as information that appears to be real news but is baseless, inaccurate, misleading, or false.
The Iran Nuclear Saga: Unmasking Misinformation from Past to Present
On June 21, 2025, self-described “peacemaker” President Donald Trump surprised the world by announcing that “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” It was later revealed that the U.S. had struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites, just a day after Pakistan nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. This may, in part, be fake news as Trump’s claim of obliteration was contradicted by his own administration. In fact, Defense Secretary Dan Caine, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained that while the U.S. had inflicted “severe damage,” it was too early to determine whether Iran’s nuclear capabilities had truly been obliterated. Regardless, the Israel-Iran-U.S. saga powerfully illustrates how disinformation—often referred to as 'fake news'—continues to shape U.S. discourse and policy.
The tensions with Iran heightened in June 2025, as the conflict between Iran and Israel erupted into a full-blown regional war. At the time, Trump was in the midst of diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Trump had previously been critical of a diplomatic approach to U.S.-Iranian relations when it was attempted by President Barack Obama. In 2011, Trump claimed that "Our President [Obama] will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and ineffective.” Now it appears that Trump’s utilization of diplomacy with Iran has resulted in the very war he once warned would result from Obama’s diplomatic approach. However, Trump has yet to refer to himself as “weak and ineffective.”
Nonetheless, Trump has provided no explanation for why he felt compelled to strike Iran on June 21 —especially considering that just 48 hours earlier, he claimed he would wait two weeks before deciding how to respond to Iran. Even so, in a four-minute speech following the bombing, he issued an ultimatum: Iran must halt its nuclear program or face further U.S. airstrikes. This made it clear that Trump is willing to get the U.S. further involved in a war with Iran over its nuclear program – something that the previous four presidents faced—and avoided.
Historically, the public is opposed to entering a war. This is true in the case of Iran, as polls show that prior to June 21, the public was largely opposed to U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran War. Historically Presidents and the stenographers posing as journalists in mass media have spread fake news to convince the public to support a war that they later come to regret. Most famously, media mogul William Randolph Hearst allegedly told a reporter, “You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war,” signaling his belief that sensationalist reporting could manufacture public support for the Spanish American War (which it did). From the false narratives surrounding the Lusitania in World War I, to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam, to the fabricated testimony about babies being thrown from incubators during the Gulf War, and the lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s involvement in 9/11 in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War— too much of the press has repeatedly served as a megaphone for lying war hawks. By the time the truth comes out, often years if not decades later, the damage is already done: millions dead or displaced, trillions of dollars wasted, and entire regions left in ruin. And yet, the media often pats itself on the back for eventually getting it right.
Trump broke with this historical tradition and ignored public opinion. However, that is not to say that Israel, the U.S., and some media outlets and personalities have not been spreading fake news to convince U.S. audience to support a war with Iran. For example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that the June 14 bombing was justifiable because Iran was close to building a nuclear weapon: “It could be a year. It could be within a few months.” But these claims echo a decade of contradictions and misinformation.
In September of 2012, Netanyahu claimed Iran was just “six months” away from developing a nuclear bomb. That statement was proven false in 2015 – a span far longer than six months– when Netanyahu admitted that Iran still had yet to procure a nuclear weapon. At the time, he opposed President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, warning it would guarantee Iran would acquire a bomb.
By 2018, that guarantee had not been realized. That same year, Netanyahu claimed to have new evidence that Iran was getting close to developing a nuclear bomb. However, at the time, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Thomas Countryman dismissed the evidence as outdated information, saying it was “known ten years ago or more.”
Netanyahu is far from the only one pushing conflicting narratives. In March 2025, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Yet, many in the MAGA Movement – such as U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz– claimed, without providing any corroborating evidence to independent sources, that Iran was close to procuring a nuclear bomb. This was echoed by President Trump, who posted on social media that “IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,” justifying U.S. support for Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. When asked about Gabbard’s March comments Trump responded "I don't care what she said…I think they were very close to having one." Shortly after, the White House released an edited misleading video of Gabbard’s testimony that concealed her contention that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb. Days later Trump responded to a reporter’s question about Gabbard’s March claim by exclaiming “She’s wrong.” For her part Gabbard seemed to rewrite history claiming that the coverage of her March testimony was taken “out of context” by the media. While the administration was getting its story straight, tensions have escalated, with Iran refusing to bow to U.S. or Israeli demands.
Some legacy news has been particularly complicit in convincing the public to support the U.S. bombing of Iran. CNN has given airtime to so-called progressives like Van Jones and warmongering neoconservatives like John Bolton, both cheerleading U.S. military aggression. Meanwhile, Fox News Channel gave war hawks such as Graham a platform to convince audiences that Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is akin to Adolf Hitler - an age-old, historically illiterate war-hawk trope. Graham also claimed that U.S.’s inaction when it comes to bombing Iran will result in World War III. This age old trope is reminiscent of the quote often attributed to the social critical and comedian George Carlin that “fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.”
Meanwhile, outlets such as CNN have spotlighted the suffering of Israeli civilians—like a woman giving birth in a bomb shelter—but coverage of similar stories in Iran, or earlier in Gaza, has been noticeably absent. In part, this is due to Israel’s restrictions on press access in Gaza. Nonetheless, the result is that significant portions of U.S. audiences are correctly empathetic to the suffering of Israeli people, while ignorant of similar or worse carnage facing the people of Gaza and Iran.
Similarly, the Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to convince U.S. audiences that regime change is necessary in Iran. Trump’s team claims that the U.S. will be welcomed as liberators in Iran—something they incorrectly claimed would happen in Iraq two decades ago. In an apparent attempt to support these claims, the legacy media frequently notes Iranian citizens' dissatisfaction with their government but almost never reports on dissent within Israel. In fact, Israeli news outlets report that many Israeli citizens oppose Netanyahu’s management of the war with Iran and blame him for the plight of Israeli hostages in Gaza.
Relatedly, they engage in gross contradictions such as framing Iran as a backward theocracy, while U.S. war hawks such as Cruz – who embarrassingly advocated for bombing Iran while demonstrating complete ignorance of Iran’s history, population, and religious makeup - and United States Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee justify bombing Iran on a religious basis.
Similarly, leaders and the news media spread the baseless claim that Iran is the “number one state sponsor of terrorism,” yet they never explain how that label is justified or quantified.
Boake Carter reportedly once said, “In time of war, the first casualty is truth.” That sentiment rings true in this case, where Vice President J.D. Vance is seeking to avoid questions concerning the constitutionality of Trump’s strikes on Iran by claiming that the U.S. is at war with nuclear facilities, not Iran. The question now is not whether truth is buried—it is whether the people, and the free press that democracy necessitates, will fight to resurrect it.
Los Angeles: Manufacturing a Crisis or Managing Reality?
In June 2025, Donald Trump shifted public attention away from his declining economic poll numbers—historically a strong issue for him, but undermined by his unpopular tariff policy—by reigniting another signature theme of his agenda: immigration. He federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles, claiming the city was in chaos. The legality of this decision is currently being challenged in court, as questions arise over whether a president can deploy federal troops without state approval—and under what circumstances. Meanwhile, on June 18, Trump deployed 2,000 more National Guard troops to Los Angeles even as protests have wound down.
But was there really a crisis in Los Angeles that warranted this escalation? While the answer may be subjective, what stands out is the broad coalition of local leaders who disagreed with Trump’s assessment. Trump declared the city was “under siege,” yet reports show that the protests—largely peaceful—were confined to a 10-block radius in a sprawling metropolis.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass both argued the situation was under control and accused Trump of manufacturing a crisis. While some may dismiss their claims as partisan, their position was echoed by an unexpected voice: the Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell. McDonnell told CBS, "We don't need the National Guard, and they are not here to help us right now." One might assume he would welcome National Guard support if his department were overwhelmed, but instead, he appeared on CNN to deny that a crisis existed.
Despite these firsthand accounts, online misinformation fueled public panic—especially among those far removed from California. Viral AI-generated videos falsely depicted violent protesters and included a hyper-realistic deepfake of Governor Newsom casually combing his hair amid the unrest. Trump has sought to shift the public debate to whether he can federalize the National Guard in such situations, rather than whether such federalization is truly necessary. While the courts have so far affirmed Trump's authority to federalize the National Guard, it's ultimately up to the public to decide whether such actions are justified in future situations.
🔪 Character Assassination
This section chronicles some of the most pressing examples of character assassination from the previous two weeks. The Lab for Character Assassination and Reputation Politics (CARP) at George Mason University defines character assassination as "the deliberate destruction of an individual's reputation or credibility through character attacks."
Paid Protesters or Genuine Voices? The Battle Over No Kings Day and Trump’s Military Parade
On June 14, 2025, President Donald Trump held a military parade to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army – it was also his birthday. Critics of Trump dismissed the event as a birthday vanity project, overlooking the fact that his birthday falls on Flag Day. Others attacked the entire event as a waste of public funds a – which resonated as this was the same president who launched DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency – which is not actually a department of the federal government), because it reportedly cost between $25 and45 million (the troops deployed to Los Angeles cost an additional $134 million). What constitutes waste is somewhat subjective, and these criticisms were undoubtedly an exercise in character assassination. Similarly, critics lampooned Trump for the amount of empty seats in the stands at the event - which supported claims that the event was overhyped and poorly attended due to weather conditions.
Trump supporters sought to assassinate the character of the millions of people who participated in the No Kings Day protest which occurred the same day as the military parade. A common attack was the age old baseless claim that protesters do not believe what they are protesting for because they are paid. For example, without evidence the Quakertown, Pennsylvania Republican Party claimed that 'No Kings' protesters would be paid $40; Reddit forums were full of false claims of paid protesters; and Trump supporters attended and waved signs that read “These Are Paid Protesters.” To date, no one has produced irrefutable evidence that any, let alone all, of the protesters were paid.
To understand why this is a baseless claim, one must look at the Los Angeles protests a week earlier. During those protests Trump claimed without evidence that the protesters were “paid” to be there. To help amplify this attack on the character of the protesters, the internet was inundated with deepfake video clips purporting to show protesters admitting they were paid. Relatedly, a Craigslist ad offering to pay protesters – posted as a prank – was cited by Republicans as proof of paid protesters. In fact, the videos were so convincing that Trump’s Justice Department was duped into investigating whether or not they were paid.
At the heart of the character assassination against protesters is a bad-faith or deeply uninformed understanding of how protests work. Organizing costs money—it’s not an exercise in random chaos. In a capitalist society like the U.S., civic action often requires funding for websites, branding, public relations, outreach, and more. Paying protesters isn’t part of the budget because it’s widely seen as ineffective. Ask any wealthy campaign that lost an election—they’ll tell you that money can buy visibility, but not genuine support. The notion that protesters are paid is a baseless narrative designed to delegitimize people and their motivations.
The Politics of Violence and Misinformation: How Assassinations Become a Media Battlefield
On the weekend of June 14, 2025, audiences were gripped with fear, panic, and dismay over reports that a lone gunman had killed two individuals and injured two others in politically targeted attacks at their homes. The assassin Vance Boelter, 57, reportedly had 45 targets, but was captured after attacks at the two homes. Tragedies such as this take time to process, and as other assassination attempts – such as that on President Donald Trump in July 2024 – reveal, the public may never find out the true motive.
Rather than wait to see if irrefutable evidence emerged, U.S. Senator Mike Lee of Utah used the opportunity to attack the character of leftists and former Vice-Presidential candidate and current Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Indeed, Lee noted that Vance had at one time been a Walz appointee, and posted social media posts that read “nightmare on Walz street” and “this is what happens when Marxist do not get their way” – to date there has not been evidence that the shooter was a Marxist. In fact, Boelter’s best friend claims that the assassin was an Alex Jones consuming Trump supporting right wing MAGA adherent.
Regardless, whether Boelter identifies as MAGA or a Marxist is irrelevant, because it is intellectually dishonest to assassinate the character of everyone who shares that identity. After all, when a Utah man shot three people at a carnival in Salt Lake City, Utah – including an 8 month old - on June 15, 2025, Lee did not accuse himself or everyone in Utah of shooting people when they do not get their way. Nor did he accuse all Utah Republicans of waving guns at peaceful protesters when they do not get their way after one of them was shot to death for brandishing a rifle at a peaceful No Kings protester in Utah on June 14, 2025.
Lee was not alone, as others in the Republican Party got on board, blaming Democrats for the murder of Democrats in Minnesota. For example, Trump referred to the killing as “horrific violence [that] will not be tolerated,” but later told ABC that Walz is “a terrible governor” and “a grossly incompetent person.” On his X platform, Elon Musk echoed Lee posting that the shooting showed that “The far left is murderously violent” to which Lee replied “Fact check: TRUE”. Laura Loomer of right-wing extremist fame claimed without evidence that the shooter was part of the “No Kings” protests.
🚫Censorship
This section chronicles some of the most pressing examples of censorship from the previous two weeks. Project Censored defines censorship as “the suppression of information, whether purposeful or not, by any method—including bias, omission, underreporting, or self-censorship—that prevents the public from fully knowing what is happening in society.”
The Hidden War on Truth: Violence and Censorship Against Journalists
While falsehoods flow freely, truth-tellers continue to face mounting barriers. Indeed, the censorship of information in the United States continues to be a problem for truth-tellers. In fact, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour recently said of traveling to the U.S. that it’s “as if I was going to North Korea,” a nation whose government has long been criticized for its suppression of truth and amplification of falsehoods.
Although censorship comes in many forms, one of the most pervasive currently facing journalists is violence. Indeed, nearly every journalist I have known has stories of violence perpetrated against them or their team. When I inquire why the public is not made aware of the violence journalists face daily, they tell me that news media believe they should never make themselves the story. As a result, the public remains unaware of the violence journalists experience while they are doing their job to serve the public.
Some acts of violence against journalists, as a form of censorship, are caught on camera, and thus result in news media coverage. For example, during the June 2025 Los Angeles protests, a police officer horrified audiences by shooting Channel Nine reporter Lauren Tomasi, who was clearly a journalist, from short range. This was just the beginning. In fact, the Los Angeles Press Club documented over 30 incidents of violence against journalists including an LA Daily News journalist who was struck with pepper balls and tear gas, and a British journalist named Nick Stern had emergency surgery to remove a three-inch plastic bullet from his leg. Meanwhile, CNN reserved its outrage for the incident when one of its journalists was handcuffed on air and slowly escorted through the violence by police in Los Angeles. Certainly, the treatment of the CNN reporter was at odds with First Amendment principles, but I think any journalist would take a perp walk over a rubber bullet to the head anyway.
📚 Recommended Reading
This section features helpful resources and articles from the past two weeks for anyone looking to strengthen their media literacy skills and become more news-savvy.
Unmasking the Machinery of Fake News: Insights from a Republican Insider
For anyone interested in uncovering how fake news is manufactured by political parties, I highly recommend Why We Did It: A Travelogue from the Republican Road to Hell (2022) by Tim Miller. As a former Republican operative, Miller pulls back the curtain on the process, the motivations, and the key players behind the creation and dissemination of fake news within mainstream media. Combining personal storytelling with honest reflection and a candid apology for years of complicity, Miller vividly reveals the formidable challenges that truth-tellers face today.
🔦Spotlight: Media Literacy Resource
In this section I spotlight a new media literacy resource that I recommend for people who want to be more media literate.
Decoding Media Frames: Beyond Fact-Checking to Critical Understanding
For anyone looking to move beyond simple fact-checking and better understand how news outlets report truth while framing it in narrow or biased ways, I highly recommend Beyond Fact- Checking by Shealeigh Voitl, Andy Lee Roth, and Project Censored. This free resource is an excellent tool for teachers, parents, journalists, and communities who want to develop critical skills to become better informed about the world around them. You can access it without a subscription or any personal information by clicking here.
Here’s how the creators describe the Beyond Fact-Checking guide:
“Students today need critical media literacy skills more than ever. Beyond Fact-Checking provides resources for educators to help students think critically about point of view and competing perspectives in news stories about current events. This practical guide introduces the concept of media ‘frames’ and offers six detailed lesson plans to teach students how to ‘frame-check’ news stories.”
🎓What are Some Trustworthy Media Literacy Organizations and Resources?
For those who want more information and resources, the US is home to many thriving media literacy organizations. Click here to access recommended media literacy organizations and resources from NolanHigdon.com.
🔥Recent Media Appearance
Was Pres. Donald Trump's order to strike Iran constitutional? Bay Area experts weigh in on what happens next - ABC7 San Francisco Nolan Higdon discusses Trump’s strike on Iran with ABC’s Anser Hassan.
🚨NEW Episodes of Disinfo Detox Podcast
Is ChatGPT Spying on You? The Legal Case That Could Change Everything
Why This History Professor Says Media Can’t Be Trusted on Iran-Israel (W/ Mickey Huff)
📰 Support This Work
If you find value in what I’m doing, consider becoming a monthly paid subscriber—it helps me keep the lights on and the content flowing.
Can’t swing a subscription right now? No worries. A like, comment, share, or free subscribe goes a long way in boosting visibility and helping this project grow.
The more we spread media literacy, the stronger our democracy becomes.
💥 Let’s build it together.