This summer delivered some internal drama at CNN, America’s once respected cable news network. The outlet’s media correspondent Oliver Darcy announced his departure to undertake a solo venture, while the nightly column Reliable Sources would be placed on an indefinite hiatus. Then intrigue set in.

The network pariah and Darcy’s former mentor Brian Stelter let it be known that he would be making his return to CNN and would be reconstituting the newsletter in a newer format. In his announced return, Stelter declared, “I have changed a lot since I signed off two years ago. I'm returning to CNN in a brand new role as Chief Media Analyst. It will be different, because I am different.” 

Well, it has been a week since he was back in his old stomping ground, so we will take a look and see if this is actually true or if it's more like when a bar switches its appetizer from standard french fries to curly fries – seemingly different but ultimately the same fare in a different form.

Here is some of what Mr.Stelter has offered up since his return.

One of the first things to fall under Brian’s purview as a media analyst was, of course, the presidential debate hosted by ABC News. The two moderators - David Muir and Linsey Davis - have been the focus, and so Brian’s overall assessment was looked for following that debacle. Over the years, Stelter has been described as the media Hall Monitor, but in reality he has more often served as the custodian, refusing to be overly critical when it was needed and behaving more in a defensive role.

Fulfilling that role meant the harshest thing he had to say about the unacceptable performance of the moderators was that they were in a no-win situation. Really, Brian?!

My 2¢: Debate moderators are in an impossible position whenever Trump is on the stage. The same is true for journalists more broadly whenever Trump is the story: You're damned if you fact-check and you're damned if you don't.

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) September 11, 2024

And yet, as reticent as he had been to comment the night after the debate, he managed to make at least half a dozen posts or retweets concerning the deeply vital Taylor Swift endorsement of Kamala Harris.

We covered how CNN’s fact-checker Daniel Dale was glaringly dishonest in his measurement, yet in his Wednesday report Stelter hailed the failed truth detector: CNN fact-checker/national treasure Daniel Dale appeared on the network last night and called Trump's debate performance "staggeringly dishonest." 

He then went on to criticize Breitbart by saying the site was overly critical of Kamala Harris for saying she wrongly pushed anti-Trump “hoaxes.” (He used quotation marks to call their measurement into question.) Then Brian followed this critique in amazing fashion -- by quoting none other than the escaped emotional trauma center denizen, Keith Olbermann.

Brian has been right in line with most of the press in his tacit endorsement of Harris. On Monday, September 9, his first day back of the Reliable Sources newsletter, he was raving about a political ad the Harris campaign put out. Politico, which had the ad first, calls it trolling: “The ad will run nationally on Fox News and in West Palm Beach — home to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort."

Then on Tuesday, he was back at it: The Harris campaign has a full-page ad in Tuesday's Philadelphia Inquirer blasting Project 2025 as "Trump's plan to control you.” Add to this a comment about the DNC posting billboards in the area ahead of the debate. As for his coverage of any Trump ads or promotions? Yeah, good luck finding anything of that nature.

Brian has also been all over the controversy of the Department of Justice delivering indictments over the supposed Russian investments in conservative media outlet Tenet. As I covered on the Lie-Able Sources Podcast, the indictments were sent to operatives at the Russian media outlet RT and were not leveled at anyone at Tenet, or any of the named conservative commentators whose work that outlet syndicated. Of course, this has done little to halt the hysterical coverage.

Any pretense at objectivity is abandoned by Stelter as he has been labeling the likes of Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, and the others as essentially guilty of taking Russian influence dollars. Russian state media actors allegedly orchestrated an influence operation involving some of the biggest right-wing social media stars; the personalities are keeping quiet about the scandal. Yet while Stelter has not waited to see if anything tangible comes from this timed-with-the-election DOJ accusation, he manages to give the evidence of his unprofessional approach on display: The media personalities weren't charged in the indictment and aren't obligated to forfeit the money. How about that…?

Say, speaking of keeping quiet about scandals – how about defamation lawsuits??? Stelter made the point to cover the fact that a case brought against the news network Newsmax by Smartmatic Voting Systems is going to trial at the end of the month. He sounds very excited about this and mentions he is awaiting the point that Newsmax might settle out of court. You know, just like Fox News had done, which essentially means they are Guilty! In the eyes of Stelter.

Of course, we do not see any similar coverage from him concerning the looming defamation suit brought against his own network, one in which it has been rather established that their reports were wildly incorrect and certainly appear to have defamed a contract worker helping evacuate people out of Afghanistan. I mean, why would a media correspondent at CNN cover the case of a media court case…involving CNN?

Then just to put a mirthful bow on The Week of Stelter, there was this nugget concerning the prospects of Donald Trump. In a dose of obliviousness, in light of Kamala Harris notably ducking the media at all costs, Brian suggests that Trump and Vance may be hurting their cause by actually going out and campaigning via podcast appearances. Trump keeps seeking out podcasts for friendly interviews, and his running mate JD Vance has been on the podcast circuit for years. But are the appearances hurting more than helping? This passes for salient analysis, something especially baffling considering Harris has only sought out safe havens for her rare interviews, including Brian’s own network.

But making this fractured criticism of podcast appearances more obtuse is that Stelter explored this concept…on a podcast, Vanity Fair’s “Inside The Hive” program.

So there we have it. It is rather safe to say that despite a new title and claims of somehow delivering a fresh concept, we are getting the same old bowl of bland, starchy content from the man. Don’t be fooled by whatever description is used on the new menu.