Bravo, CNN—five of your finest “anti-Trump” journalists locked in a conference room, furiously churning out a 2,000-word fever dream titled “‘It’s not what he expected’: Rubio has competition for the role of America’s top diplomat”—and what do we get? A masterclass in anonymous-source gymnastics, a dizzying parade of “people familiar with,” “sources say,” and “reportedly” that reads like a bad spy novel, not journalism. Let’s break this down with the sharpest, most caustic commentary we can muster because this isn’t reporting—it’s a desperate, fabricated narrative dressed up as news.
CNN: ‘It’s not what he expected’: Rubio has competition for the role of America’s top diplomat
When Marco Rubio signed on as Donald Trump’s Secretary of State, he went into the job “with eyes wide open,” according to a person familiar with his thinking. He knew it wouldn’t be easy working for Trump. He knew that Trump had a track record of firing top officials by tweet. He also knew what it was like to be called, “Little Marco.”
Rubio still lobbied for the prestigious job of being America’s top diplomat after he lost out on being Trump’s vice president to JD Vance.
What Rubio didn’t count on was that he might run the risk of being overshadowed as secretary of state by one of Trump’s closest friends, real estate developer and billionaire Steve Witkoff.
Well, it didn’t take long to get to their “inferred” premise👆
Big problem –– this piece is riddled with phrases like “according to a person familiar with his thinking,” “said a person familiar with the dynamic,” “he reportedly feuded with Elon Musk,” “according to people familiar with the State Department,” and on and on—twelve times, by my count, they lean on these shadowy, nameless whisperers to spin a tale of supposed tension between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. “Multiple sources familiar with Rubio and the job say he appears ill at ease,” they claim. “Sources familiar with Rubio also point out…” Really? Who are these people? Are they hiding under desks in the State Department, or are they just figments of CNN’s collective anti-Trump imagination?
We read the piece so you don’t have to … and just for the record, here are the key phrases:
- “…according to a person familiar with his thinking.”
- “…said a person familiar with the dynamic.”
- “…he reportedly feuded with Elon Musk.”
- “…according to people familiar with the State Department.”
- “…multiple sources familiar with Rubio and the job say he appears ill at ease.”
- “Sources familiar with Rubio also point out…”
- “For some veteran diplomats back in Washington…”
- “…said one former senior State Department official familiar with both Rubio and Witkoff.”
- “…a senior US official close to Rubio told CNN.”
- “…one senior European official told CNN.”
- “…two foreign service officers said.”
- “Still, this person said they were disappointed…”
Not to disappoint, in less than 24 hours, Scott Pinsker, a seasoned public relations and crisis communications expert, whipped up his usual razor-sharp and insightful critique of CNN’s sprawling 50+ paragraph piece, in his PJ Media article. Pinsker astutely notes that the involvement of five CNN reporters in this “long-form screed” signals a deliberate, resource-heavy effort to push a specific narrative—namely, that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and billionaire advisor Steve Witkoff are locked in a bitter feud within Trump’s inner circle. He calls it “hilarious” and “orchestrated,” exposing CNN’s determination to manufacture drama, despite the absurdity of dedicating such corporate time and energy to a story that hinges on anonymous whispers while ignoring real evidence to the contrary. Pinsker’s observation underscores the desperation of legacy media to undermine Trump’s administration, revealing a glaring disconnect between CNN’s agenda and journalistic integrity.
PJ Media, Scott Pinsker: The Democrats Can’t Win Unless THIS Happens, and God Help Us, They’re Trying
Here’s the second of your weekend articles, CNN’s: “‘It’s not what he expected’: Rubio has competition for the role of America’s top diplomat.”
It’s a long form screed: 50+ paragraphs! In today’s age of quick-hit, in-and-out reporting, an article like this — with FIVE different CNN reporters working on the byline! — clearly necessitated a ton of time, energy, and corporate resources. This wasn’t one journalist with an axe to grind, but a deliberate, orchestrated attempt by a “news organization” to promote a very specific narrative.
It’s hilarious, too.
CNN was absolutely, 100% determined to report that Trump’s inner circle, namely Secretary of State Marco Rubio and billionaire advisor Steve Witkoff, were at each other’s throats.
Here’s the kicker, the glaring contradiction that exposes this entire screed as a sham: CNN quotes real sources—actual named individuals or identifiable figures like “one former senior State Department official familiar with both Rubio and Witkoff,” “a senior US official close to Rubio,” “one senior European official,” “two foreign service officers,” and even “this person” (who, conveniently, remains unnamed). These real sources, presumably with faces and credentials, contradict their premise! They don’t paint a picture of a “rift” or “competition” between Rubio and Witkoff—they describe a functional, if not harmonious, dynamic. Yet, the CNN scribes bury that under a mountain of anonymous drivel to push their false narrative of chaos in Trump’s diplomatic corps.
So, here’s the biting question, CNN: How do five so-called “journalists” come up with a news piece that’s primarily one of “According to anonymous sources” in creating the false narrative that there’s a rift between Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, while simultaneously quoting real sources that contradict that premise? Are the CNN standards so low that they think slapping “anonymous” on every other sentence somehow legitimizes a story that falls apart under scrutiny? Or is this just another sad attempt to undermine Trump’s team by cherry-picking whispers while ignoring the actual evidence staring them in the face?
CNN’s reliance on anonymous sources—12 times in one article!—smacks of desperation, especially when those sources are so conveniently vague they could be anyone from a disgruntled intern to a made-up persona they created during the planning session in the conference room. Meanwhile, the real voices they grudgingly include—like that “senior US official close to Rubio” or “two foreign service officers”—don’t back your drama. They suggest Rubio and Witkoff are getting the job done, even if it’s messy. But why let facts get in the way of a good anti-Trump takedown, right?
This isn’t journalism—it’s a clown show. CNN assembled their five b̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶p̶o̶r̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ circus tent performers, a conference room, and a clear agenda, yet they’ve produced a piece so flimsy it hinges on faceless whispers while real, named sources undermine their entire angle. Maybe next time, skip the echo chamber and try, oh I don’t know, actual reporting. But then again, that might not fit the narrative, would it? Pathetic.