Staff Reports
MSNBC took center stage in the theater of the absurd as hosts Stephanie Ruhle and Jonathan Capehart found themselves knee-deep in a mess of their own making after they churned out some remarkably inaccurate claims about U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and former President Donald Trump. On a typical night for the network, their blunders could almost be considered routine, but this time, they reached new comedic heights.
On a broadcast from Monday, Ruhle confidently declared that Gabbard had made a startling statement, supposedly labeling Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin as “very good friends.” Capehart later echoed this whopper, supposedly citing an interview where Gabbard made this claim. Of course, anyone with a pulse and an internet connection soon revealed that Gabbard’s actual remarks concerned Trump’s camaraderie with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and had nothing to do with Putin. It turns out that not everyone can keep track of who’s friends with whom in the world of political alliances.
WATCH: Anti-Trump MSNBC Hosts Forced To Issue Correction After Trump Hoax Is Debunked. https://t.co/wyi9Ryx2du#DiamondandSilk
— Diamond and Silk® (@DiamondandSilk) March 20, 2025
Ruhle’s misstatement quickly transformed into a spectacle, as she publicly pondered how out of touch Trump was with American sentiment while misreporting facts that wouldn’t hold water in any rational environment. Despite the awkwardness, she continued to assert that Gabbard had linked Trump and Putin in tight-knit friendship. Her guest, a New York Times congressional reporter, complicitly reinforced this narrative, suggesting Trump and Putin were in cahoots alongside a shared ideology. What a delightful display of non-fact-checking in action!
Capehart soon jumped on the bandwagon, doubling down on the established narrative. His urging that Gabbard’s supposed comments posed a dangerous precedent was met with alarming overreactions. Instead of a coherent analysis, viewers were treated to the outrageous idea that some fictional alliance between Trump and Putin could destabilize world order, all based on a blatant misinterpretation of Gabbard’s statements.
When the tide turned the following day, however, the shrill cries of misinformation fell silent as the actual transcript of Gabbard’s interview emerged and stirred a revelation: Putin wasn’t even mentioned. Ruhle eventually stood in front of her audience to awkwardly walk back her blunder, stating that she had erred in attributing a close friendship between Trump and Putin instead of the actual subject, Modi. Capehart dutifully followed suit, but by then, the damage was done, and the misinformation volleyed around social media like a hot potato.
As expected, the Associated Press soon found itself in a similar position, reluctantly retracting its initial report that parroted the unsubstantiated claims. The AP, catching flack for its misleading headlines, was forced to clarify its stance after the truth saw the light of day. A White House communications staffer, who undoubtedly found humor in the situation, fired off a message on social media, pointing out the growing mistrust in the media landscape fueled by such blunders. All this drama led to a simple truth: when it comes to holding the media accountable, it seems they could use a few lessons in accuracy, instead of playing fast and loose with the facts.
