A funny thing happened this week. CNN published an exclusive report, and nobody cheered—quite the opposite.

The cable network reported that a federal intelligence assessment concluded the recent U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities had caused minimal damage. In fact, according to CNN’s report, the bombings barely delayed Iran’s nuclear program by even a month.

That’s not the weird part. The weird part is that the cable network then issued a somewhat timid statement, defending its reporting after critics, including President Trump, characterized the story as unreliable and inaccurate.

“We stand 100 percent behind Natasha Bertrand’s journalism and specifically her and her colleagues’ reporting of the early intelligence assessment of the U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities,” CNN’s statement read.

It adds, “CNN’s reporting made clear that this was an initial finding that could change with additional intelligence. We have extensively covered President Trump’s own deep skepticism about it. However, we do not believe it is reasonable to criticize CNN reporters for accurately reporting the existence of the assessment and accurately characterizing its findings, which are in the public interest.”

What makes this especially strange isn’t CNN’s pushback against the president. That kind of response was always great for ratings and subscriptions during the first Trump administration. What’s odd is that CNN wasn’t just responding to the president, but to a larger, more diverse group of critics. The exclusive was questioned and criticized right from the start. The broader commentariat — not just the

© The Hill