CNN used to use the tag line “facts first” in their advertisement campaigns, and on Tuesday’s NewsNIght, host Abby Phillip demonstrated why they stopped. In their discussions about racism and President Trump’s crackdown on crime in Washington, D.C., Phillip shouted down commentator Batya Ungar-Sargon when she attempted to cite facts and statistics.
Spurred on to talk about racism in America because of a viral moment that happened on the show last week involving Jillian Michaels, Phillip kicked off Tuesday night’s episode with a monologue about slavery before going to her panel to discuss Trump’s new focus on the Smithsonian’s African American History Museum.
“[H]e's focused on one thing, and that is that there's too much slavery being mentioned in the United States of America. That's very odd, Batya, honestly,” she directed the conversation to Ungar-Sargon.
Ungar-Sargon started by noting she was honored to be part of the discussion and proceeded to recall what sociologists called “Great Awokening” where “white progressives suddenly start obsessing over race in a way that was actually far to the left of where Hispanic and Black Americans were on this issue.”
Citing the findings of the sociologists, Ungar-Sargon began to read off how liberal media outlets had flooded the zone with woke terms and phrases, essentially trying to change the cultural zeitgeist, but Phillip wasn’t having it (Click “expand”):
UNGAR-SARGON: So, for example, in 2010, the words white supremacy were mentioned 75 times in The Washington Post and The New York Times.
PHILLIP: But the media's different from museums.
UNGAR-SARGON: In 2020, the words white supremacy were mentioned 700 times in The Washington Post and The New York Times, and 2,400 times in NPR, the word racism 4,000 times in 2020, the words white and racial privilege from 2013 to 2019 grew by 1,500 percent in The New York Times and The Washington Post. And the word slavery itself exponentially skyrocketed as a percentage of words.
I'm offering this only to suggest --
PHILLIP: Yes, I understand. I'm just wondering what do you think is the problem so with talking about slavery, white supremacy, racism, et cetera, what's the problem?
UNGAR-SARGON: So, the point I'm trying to make here is that liberals will say, well, this is a reflection of reality. But, of course, it isn't. This is a reflection of a newfound obsession that was driven by the media. And that doesn't reflect well, I guess I'm not either the moral evil or the historical accuracy.
Phillip responded by lashing out and interrogating Ungar-Sargon on if she thought racism and white supremacy were real things. “You don't think it's a reflection of reality. Based on what?” she chided. “Based on the idea that those things don't exist based on that white, based on white supremacy doesn't exist, racism doesn't exist, that we shouldn't be talking about it anymore?”
Even with Ungar-Sargon saying all those things were “evil,” Phillip was still down her guest’s throat and suggesting Ungar-Sargon might be fine with Jim Crow laws (Click “expand”):
UNGAR-SARGON: Based on the idea, obviously, all these things, I think, are evil, but there's not more slavery now to the --
PHILLIP: Yes. But I think part of the problem --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Part of the problem is that back -- you know, not that long ago, in the 50s, 60s, even beyond that, when there was actual Jim Crow happening in this country, people were actually treating black people as second class citizens, we weren't talking about those things at all. Those words virtually never mentioned. So, is that that better? Was it better then or was it worse then?
Later in the show, as they were discussing the crackdown on crime in the nation’s capital, Phillip attempted to shout down Ungar-Sargon for citing crime statistic that showed things were greatly improving. Phillip decried that the stats only covered about a week, despite the fact that that was about how long the operation had been underway (Click “expand”):
UNGAR-SARGON: Everybody is sitting here saying they're doing nothing, that they've done nothing.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: Robberies down 46 percent since Trump --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay, hold on a second.
UNGAR-SARGON: Carjacking, down 83 percent.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: Car theft, down 21 percent.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: That’s not a real stat.
JENNINGS: It's from a D.C. policeman.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: -- down 22 percent. It’s from D.C. police. Obviously, it's related to the fact that these people on the streets --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: You're talking about -- you're talking about a week's worth of statistics.
Citing an example of how the media have been “atrocious” on the D.C. crime story, Ungar-Sargon called out the Washington Post and New York Times for sharing a “totally false” map of the arrest locations in the district:
Okay, thank you. The Washington Post put a map, okay? This map was supposed to show from a data point of view where the arrests were happening, alleging to prove that they were not happening in the crime-ridden cities “based on visuals and accounts from posts, reporters and social media posts.” It was retweeted by New York Times reporters, and it was totally false!
But before going to a commercial break, Phillip lashed out at Republicans for caring about crime in Democrat-controlled cites. “And if Republicans wanted to try running cities, they should run in those cities, try to get elected, and maybe try to fix those problems,” she whined.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
CNN NewsNight
August 19, 2025
10:14:07 p.m. Eastern(…)
ABBY PHILLIP: I also come back to why the focus so much on slavery when it comes to rewriting history? There's a lot of history that it's in these museums, but he's focused on one thing, and that is that there's too much slavery being mentioned in the United States of America. That's very odd, Batya, honestly.
BATYA UNGAR-SARGON: So, I want to start by saying I actually agree with everything that's been said, and I loved your opening. And so I offer these comments very humbly, because it's an honor to be included in this conversation, which is very solemn, and I think we all understand that and we are all looking for the common ground here.
And so what I'm about to say, I don't mean in any way to negate that tone, but starting around 2011, 2012, sociologists started to notice a shift in white liberal opinion polling to where white progressives became more extreme in their views on race than black and Hispanic Americans.
And they called this, the sociologists did, called it the great awokening. And when they postulated, where did this come from? Why did white progressives suddenly start obsessing over race in a way that was actually far to the left of where Hispanic and Black Americans were on this issue, they found that the media had shifted radically how it talked about these issues.
So, for example, in 2010, the words white supremacy were mentioned 75 times in The Washington Post and The New York Times.
PHILLIP: But the media's different from museums.
UNGAR-SARGON: In 2020, the words white supremacy were mentioned 700 times in The Washington Post and The New York Times, and 2,400 times in NPR, the word racism 4,000 times in 2020, the words white and racial privilege from 2013 to 2019 grew by 1,500 percent in The New York Times and The Washington Post. And the word slavery itself exponentially skyrocketed as a percentage of words.
I'm offering this only to suggest --
PHILLIP: Yes, I understand. I'm just wondering what do you think is the problem so with talking about slavery, white supremacy, racism, et cetera, what's the problem?
UNGAR-SARGON: So, the point I'm trying to make here is that liberals will say, well, this is a reflection of reality. But, of course, it isn't. This is a reflection of a newfound obsession that was driven by the media. And that doesn't reflect well, I guess I'm not either the moral evil or the historical accuracy.
PHILLIP: I do want to dive into what you mean by that, because you say that it's -- you don't think it's a reflection of reality. Based on what? Based on the idea that those things don't exist based on that white, based on white supremacy doesn't exist, racism doesn't exist, that we shouldn't be talking about it anymore?
UNGAR-SARGON: Based on the idea, obviously, all these things, I think, are evil, but there's not more slavery now to the --
PHILLIP: Yes. But I think part of the problem --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Part of the problem is that back -- you know, not that long ago, in the 50s, 60s, even beyond that, when there was actual Jim Crow happening in this country, people were actually treating black people as second class citizens, we weren't talking about those things at all. Those words virtually never mentioned. So, is that that better? Was it better then or was it worse then?
UNGAR-SARGON: That 2013 is the same as the --
BAKARI SELLERS: But you're missing -- I respectfully not have this debate many times.
UNGAR-SARGON: Do you really think that there's as big a difference between the 1960s --
PHILLIP: That's not my point. My point is that the use of the language in present day, or the lack of the use of the language back when racism was apparent, every single day in the streets of America, doesn't reflect really anything except perhaps a better awareness of the reality that we live in as a country.
SELLERS: That's not the point.
UNGAR-SARGON: Do you think the country was more racist in terms --
SELLERS: That's not the point.
PHILLIP: I didn't say anything about whether the country was more racist now.
(…)
10:46:21 p.m. Eastern
PHILLIP: I'm not saying every city, but many of the cities in the top states are led by the Democrats.
SELLERS: But that's actually --
PHILLIP: But that's because a lot of urban areas are run by Democrats. That's not a controversial thing. My point is, as not every city, some of them. My point is, even if that were the most important factors that party registration of who runs the city, those governors have the ability to step in if they wanted to and they are not. Why are they not doing that?
UNGAR-SARGON: I think it's so amazing that the line on the left has gone from how dare, you know, Trump invoke the National Guard to D.C. to saying why aren't the National Guard being sent to other cities? Bakari, you keep saying they're protecting the Lululemons like it's a joke.
I mean, is that really the message the Democrats want to be giving out? Like, where are -- the side that thinks you should be able to, you know, burn down the Lululemon, steal from the Lululemon? Let me just give some data.
SELLERS: Lululemon hasn't gotten this much free advertising in a while.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But why are they not protecting the cities? Why are they -- hold on.
UNGAR-SARGON: Everybody is sitting here saying they're doing nothing, that they've done nothing.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: Robberies down 46 percent since Trump --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay, hold on a second.
UNGAR-SARGON: Carjacking, down 83 percent.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: Car theft, down 21 percent.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: That’s not a real stat.
JENNINGS: It's from a D.C. policeman.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: -- down 22 percent. It’s from D.C. police. Obviously, it's related to the fact that these people on the streets --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: You're talking about -- you're talking about a week's worth of statistics. That's the first thing.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: The second thing is that you skirted past the question that I asked, which is why -- why are these governors not policing crime in their own states? Why?
UNGAR-SARGON: Abby, you're against Trump bringing the National Guard into D.C.!
PHILLIP: I am conceding to you -- I am conceding to you your point, which is that this needs to be addressed, that crime is a problem. Maybe if your point is that the National Guard should be involved, let's take that as a given. Why are they not involved in their own states?
UNGAR-SARGON: No, I have no idea why they didn't send them to their own states.
SELLERS: But Batya and Abby are both wrong. Can I just say -- can I just say one thing?
UNGAR-SARGON: But I do want to make one more point very quickly.
SELLERS: Yes, please.
UNGAR-SARGON: The media has been atrocious on this. Scott pointed out, 48 percent of the arrests were in the two most crime-ridden wards.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- percent of the non-immigration arrests. Immigration arrests accounted for almost half of the arrests.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: Yes, yes. 48 percent of the --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, you're really talking about a quarter --
UNGAR-SARGON: One hundred arrests. 100 arrests out of 200 arrests.
PHILLIP: You are talking about a quarter -- okay. But let's not play with statistics.
UNGAR-SARGON: Okay. Okay.
PHILLIP: You're talking about a quarter of arrests in a city where the –
UNGAR-SARGON: 100 arrests out of 200.
PHILLIP: Where most of the crime is happening in a certain part of a city. So --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Can I jump in? No, no, one second.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: Wait, I need to make my point.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It's not a great statistic.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Get it out. Get it out. Come on.
UNGAR-SARGON: Okay, thank you. The Washington Post put a map, okay? This map was supposed to show from a data point of view where the arrests were happening, alleging to prove that they were not happening in the crime-ridden cities “based on visuals and accounts from posts, reporters and social media posts.” It was retweeted by New York Times reporters, and it was totally false!
(…)
