In its latest move to the right, CNN recently hired former NYPD flack John Miller as its “chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst.” As Josmar Trujillo observed more than five years ago (FAIR.org, 6/21/17), Miller “has spun the revolving door between law enforcement and media like perhaps no one else,” moving back and forth between jobs at the NYPD, FBI, ABC and CBS.
Just last year, while working for the NYPD, Miller falsely testified that there was “no evidence” the department had spied on Muslims in mosques—when, in fact, AP had won a Pulitzer in 2012 for uncovering how after 9/11 the NYPD “systematically spied on Muslim neighborhoods, listened in on sermons, infiltrated colleges and photographed law-abiding residents” (Popular Information, 9/7/22). Shahana Hanif, the Muslim city council member who called out Miller’s lies, told Popular Information:
John Miller had the audacity to lie under oath about the nature of this program to my face…. Someone like John Miller should not be in public service nor should they be given a platform on a mainstream cable news network.
Predictably, within days of joining CNN, Miller offered up a healthy dose of dishonest copaganda to the network’s audience.
Heads I win, tails you lose

John Miller misexplains crime stats to CNN‘s audience (New Day, 9/7/22).
On CNN New Day (9/7/22), anchor John Berman brought up the issue of crime in New York City, noting that murder and shooting rates had fallen over the past year, and asking Miller to explain “how…that was achieved.”
Miller replied:
Well, I know how it was achieved because I was there. And that was achieved by extraordinarily smart deployments, which is the Bronx was driving the shooting numbers for the city a year ago. They flooded the Bronx with police officers on overtime. They flooded the Bronx with police officers working a sixth or seventh day.
They shifted tours around. They were very strategic, watching every shooting, every dot on the map and pushing resources there. And they were able to suppress that.
Berman then asked Miller how to explain the seeming anomaly that “you can get the murder right and shootings down, but robbery, felony assaults and overall crime, all up?”
Miller responded:
When you take the larceny, burglary, auto theft, these are all covered under New York’s new bail reform laws, which is, criminals know — criminals have very good intelligence, as good as the police when it comes to collecting information and distributing that among each other—they know that there are certain charges where the judge in New York state, not just New York City, is legally prohibited, prohibited by law, from setting bail in that case.
So they know I commit the crime, if I get caught, I’ll be out as soon as I get my hearing. Now, that has caused recidivism, which was always a problem, to skyrocket. So basically when you look at the larceny, the robberies—which are just larcenies where somebody tried to stop them—the burglaries, the auto thefts…. We have people, John, coming from New Jersey, where they have plenty of cars, to steal cars in New York City, because they know if they get caught, they will not go to jail.
In sum: some crimes are down because police have flooded crime-ridden neighborhoods, but that same flood of police has nothing to do with an increase in other crimes, because bail reform.

New York Post (7/8/20): “Most people released under the criminal justice reforms or amid the pandemic had no known ties to the bloodshed…. Cops should focus on the flow of illegal guns into the city.”
Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the argument Miller’s former employer, and New York mayor and former cop Eric Adams, have been making recently, based on data they will not publicly release, and that contradicts all actually available data (City and State New York, 8/3/22; Crime and Justice, 2021; Quattrone Center, 8/16/22).
Curiously, when shootings were up in 2020 (and other crimes were down), the NYPD’s argument had it that that was the result of bail reform. At the time, the total mendacity was called out by even the right-wing, cop-loving, Murdoch-owned New York Post (7/8/20). Now with the crime rates reversed, the NYPD and its allies are hoping the baseless bail reform blame will stick on a different target.
Contrary to evidence
In fact, murder and shooting rates are down slightly nationwide, after two years of increases. Criminal justice observers note that, while one should always be cautious in attempting to explain short-term changes in crime rates because of the many interacting factors involved, the nationwide shifts strongly point to national, rather than local, causes—foremost among them the major social and economic dislocations caused by the Covid-19 pandemic that have diminished as pandemic-related restrictions have lifted (Brennan Center, 7/12/22). Gun sales in particular have been mostly dropping since the spring of 2021, after a massive spike from March 2020 through January 2021—a surge in available weaponry that surely encouraged the rise in gun-related crimes like homicide and shootings (FAIR.org, 7/20/21).
Indeed, it would be very surprising if the NYPD were able to significantly reduce shooting rates by “flooding the Bronx with police officers,” as most research has found no or minimal reductions in violent crime with increased policing—including in New York City. Instead, more cops mostly translates into more arrests for low-level crimes, and the substantial costs those impose on heavily policed communities (FAIR.org, 1/27/22).

Vera Institute (4/19): “While the pretrial population comprised about half of people in jail prior to the early 1990s, it now accounts for approximately two-thirds of people in jail nationwide.”
Bail reform is not a policy that says that people who get caught “will not go to jail.” The purpose of bail historically was to make sure that someone accused of a crime—presumed innocent until proven guilty—would show up for their trial. But over the past few decades, the number of people in jail who have not yet been convicted of a crime has increased dramatically, and bail has become a punishment for the poor and a cash cow for the multi-billion dollar bail bond industry.
In fact, research shows that pretrial detention increases the likelihood of conviction, the harshness of the sentence, and the likelihood of recidivism. Given that detainees often wait months for trial, pleading guilty regardless of the circumstances can often seem like the best option for getting back to their life, job (and income), family and community. That pretrial detention also increases crime shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the disruptions it causes in people’s lives, and given that their increased conviction rate makes it harder for them to get work after release (Vera Institute, 4/19).
New York State’s 2019 bail reform prohibited bail for most misdemeanor and nonviolent felony charges, and required judges to consider the person’s ability to pay when setting bail. Other states and cities have pursued similar reforms. These reforms have reduced the number of people in jail awaiting trial. But according to all available evidence, they haven’t increased crime.
In the most comprehensive assessment of the impact of bail reform on recidivism in New York City, the city’s Office of Criminal Justice reported that as of June 2021, pretrial rearrest rates—the recidivism Miller claimed was skyrocketing “because they know if they get caught, they will not go to jail”—”have remained consistent over time and have not changed with bail reform,” at around 4%. And fewer than 1% are arrested for felonies, like auto theft and burglary.
Moreover, rollbacks in spring 2020 to those reforms allowed judges to set bail for even nonviolent felony cases that involved “persistent felony offenders”—which means the recidivism Miller and the NYPD are highlighting is not impacted by bail reform.
In other words, basically everything Miller said about NYC crime was false pro-punishment propaganda. And that’s what passes for “objectivity” at today’s CNN.
ACTION:
Please ask CNN to explain why a person who lied repeatedly and under oath about law enforcement actions, and is now misrepresenting the evidence on the causes of crime trends on CNN‘s own programming, should be offered to its viewers as an expert on police policies and practices.
CONTACT:
Messages to CNN can be sent here (or via Twitter @CNN). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread of this post.




And don’t forget that statistics rely on arrests. The more police in an area, the more arrests are reported which means that statistics about crime appear to rise. Also the fewer police in an area = fewer crimes are reported = crime appears to go down. “Statistics”can be very misleading.
A cop on the fake take
I have felt unsure of CNN news since they made such definite statements saying ivermectin was of no value against Covid-19, when so many doctors have reported saving lives with ivermectin.
You’ll need to provide good evidence for that claim. I would point you to this:
“Question Does adding ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, to the standard of care reduce the risk of severe disease in patients with COVID-19 and comorbidities?
Findings In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.
Meaning The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362
And this:
“Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.1 For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well-tolerated.1,2 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.”
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
Perhaps you would point to good-quality studies showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin against Covid-19. I have seen only large-scale, high quality studies showing it to be ineffective against any virus.
Check out the work of Dr. Tess Lawrie
“Check out the work of Dr. Tess lawrie.”
Meta-analysis studies
All of the major meta-analysis studies use the Elgazzar study which has been retracted for ethical reasons. (Source of Elgazzar study: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-100956/v2.Preprint)
Dr Tess Lawrie’s meta-analysis study also used this same flawed pre-print, used pre-print studies as “reliable data” despite not being peer-reviewed, used studies where the authors admitted that assessing the risk of bias was challenging amongst other flaws. (Source: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx)
Read the expose Cosmos magazine did about ivermectin titled:
“Data Detectives Dig Into Ivermectin Studies”
Your good doctor’s name came up in that piece as well:
“One of the co-authors was Tess Lawrie, a doctor and founder of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD). While the authors of the meta-analysis claim they have no conflict of interest, Lawrie has a large online following of vaccine sceptics to whom she spruiks the dangers of vaccines while holding up ivermectin as an effective treatment. Indeed, she’s weaponised the meta-analysis as part of her pro-ivermectin, anti-vaccine campaign – views that are at odds with the impartiality expected of someone carrying out a meta-analysis. As Garner put it: “Cochrane has checks and balances to prevent using authors with a particular positionality.”
CNN needed to fix the “Left Wing Bias” ; oh did they?
Well.. I seen those “lefty” news anchors talk about all the (pause for a moment ——-and reflect on this ——– non existent, never existed, as in CNN staff made it up on the spot and had Anderson Cooper read it off cue cards)
—paraphrased…..hundreds of 80’s and 90’s left-wing american bombings.. during the Nashville Bomber thing… on midday live coverage.
(did he say hundreds or dozens? –I would have to find the saved CNN clip)
If you research bombings… you would know how few were related to lefty politics in the US. So few, it’s hardly ever mentioned.
Political bombers? There was a guy related to the “Propaganda Due” stink in Italy… responsible for 60+ while working with far right extremists in Europe/Italy. That’s real.. he was caught. And tons of far right related extremism in the US.
Is that really a “left wing bias” at CNN ?
I totally agree with you 100%. CNN started moving rightwards when the Clintons got into office. Same thing happened to NPR. Now, all you get now are right wing talking points. SMH.
In reply to your reply..
You know what’s interesting about that “Propaganda Due” thing that I mentioned.
It was a political club. In it, were politicians, lawyers, journalists, finance and people from almost every sector; from both sides of the political spectrum. Italy’s so called “Social Democrats” and “Far Right -sometimes Fascist/Extremists” — Both sides working together… hiding that they were politically/economically conspiring while giving voters two choices from the same camp.
You would have to read about it if you haven’t; guesstimating 40-80 hours of research on everyone involved in that conspiracy – from lot’s of sources. It was politics, police, mafia, banking. They hid it behind a fraternal order. In the USA, some of the people hiding in fraternal orders call themselves libertarians now. That’s not a joke. There are some on CNN – Im not insinuating that they are doing the same thing here in the USA via a fraternal order. BUT- some of the journalists and politicians could be political actors of that type, if we are both living in the same universe – (it’s already happened in other countries). After all these strange forms of disinformation in the media.. it’s a rational debate. And, considering everything that happened in the USA – facism/extremism.. we should be having it.
This is what I sent to CNN:
Since you have added news show staff who espouse what now passes for Republican perspectives the quality of shows like Don Lemon’s has deteriorated to a point where they are unwatchable. The new “experts” are watered down shills for the growing fascist movement. Broadcasting their statements is not balanced news but propaganda. Will no longer tune into that poison.
You have got to be kidding. The term ‘quality shows’ never equated to Don Lemon or his good buddy Chris Cuomo. Both shows were always been unwatchable for countless years.