ON
← Back to feed
Lion King Composer vs. Comedian Dispute Leads to ~$40K Attorney Fee Award Against Composer
United States🏛️ PoliticsLean Conservative9/2/2026

Lion King Composer vs. Comedian Dispute Leads to ~$40K Attorney Fee Award Against Composer

In a legal dispute involving intellectual property and free speech rights, plaintiff Lebohang Morake, the creator of the opening chant from Disney's The Lion King, sued defendant Learnmore Mwanyenyeka, a comedian, over his public assertion that the chant translates to 'Look, there's a lion. Oh my god' in Zulu. Morake claimed this misrepresentation harmed his reputation and led to confusion among consumers. Mwanyenyeka filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the state law claims, arguing they violated the First Amendment. Morake later dropped the state claims and refocused the lawsuit on federal law, alleging false association and false advertising related to Mwanyenyeka's commercial use of the association with Morake's work. The court ruled in favor of Mwanyenyeka's anti-SLAPP motion, indicating that the original state law claims were dismissed due to their potential infringement on free speech rights.

Trump continues targeting female reporters with disparaging remarks President Donald Trump has continued to direct his criticism toward female journalists, according to an Axios analysis of his public comments. While Trump’s administration often highlights its openness to the media, female reporters within his orbit are frequently subjected to personal attacks and belittlement. These remarks have raised concerns among press freedom advocates, who argue that such behavior undermines public trust in the media and exposes individual journalists to harassment. Recent comments from Trump were aimed at New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman and “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker. Trump referred to Haberman as an “unattractive person both inside and out” and labeled her a “SCAMMER” following a story about his plans for the 25th anniversary of 9/11. He has previously criticized Haberman for her reporting, including her book on his presidency. In addition, Trump expressed frustration with Welker, stating he would report her to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for “rebuke or punishment” after she suggested his current political influence is weaker than in previous years. He further described her reporting as a “threat to our country.” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales defended Trump’s remarks, stating that the president has always prioritized transparency over political correctness. She argued that the low levels of public trust in the media justify such open criticism. According to Axios, Trump has made disparaging remarks about female reporters at least thirteen times since November 2025, beginning with a controversial comment in which he called Bloomberg journalist Catherine Lucey a “piggy” during a question about Jeffrey Epstein. While Trump has also targeted male reporters, the nature of his criticisms tends to be less personal. For instance, he once questioned the intelligence of former CNN host Don Lemon at the 2026 White House Correspondents Dinner and called CNN’s Jim Acosta a “rude, terrible person” in 2018. However, his comments on female journalists often focus on their appearance and professional capabilities. He has referred to ABC News’ Rachel Scott as a “horror show” and instructed CNN’s Kaitlan Collins to “smile.” Recently, he told CNN’s Kristen Holmes to “be quiet” as she attempted to ask about a White House aide. Lauren Harper, the Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, warned that Trump’s attacks on female reporters represent a dangerous escalation in threats to First Amendment rights. She emphasized that the president’s actions are part of a broader pattern of undermining the free press and specifically targeting women. The National Association of Black Journalists has condemned Trump’s treatment of female reporters of color, noting that he has used derogatory terms such as “second-rate” and “nasty” to describe them. Press freedom advocates argue that while public trust in the media may be at historic lows, Trump’s approach does not help restore confidence. Instead, they believe engaging constructively with journalists, even those who criticize his policies, is essential for building public trust. As the controversy surrounding Trump’s rhetoric continues, the debate over the balance between free speech and responsible journalism remains unresolved.

How this report was made. Objective News wrote this report from 2 source articles, using AI-assisted synthesis under our methodology. It is our own text, not a copy of any single outlet. Read our methodology.

Responsible editor: Matej BašaSpotted an error? Report it

Go to the primary sources (5)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

3 reports

Axios logoAxiosIndependentConservativeFactual 85Objective 758/31/2026
Trump keeps turning his fire on female reporters

The article reports on President Trump's pattern of attacking female reporters, highlighting specific instances where he has insulted and demeaned them. It notes that while Trump claims to be the most accessible president for the media, female journalists in his orbit face frequent criticism and harassment. The piece references specific incidents involving reporters such as Maggie Haberman and Kristen Welker, where Trump used derogatory language and made threats against them. The article contrasts Trump's treatment of female versus male reporters, noting that the latter tends to be less personal. It includes quotes from a White House spokesperson defending Trump's actions and a critic warning about the implications for free speech and gender-based harassment.

Bias read (Conservative): The article frames Trump's behavior as a reflection of his commitment to transparency and public trust, aligning with conservative narratives. It downplays concerns about harassment by attributing Trump's actions to broader distrust in the media rather than gender-specific issues. The emphasis on 'f

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports on Trump's comments toward female reporters, citing specific instances and providing context about the broader issue of press freedom. It includes direct quotes from Trump and the White House spokesperson, ensuring the information is well-supported.

Why objectivity (75): While the article presents the facts clearly, it leans slightly toward a critical perspective of Trump's behavior. The tone suggests disapproval of his treatment of female reporters, though it attempts to remain factual by quoting both Trump and his defenders.

Reason logoReasonParty-alignedCenterFactual 75Objective 859/2/2026
Lion King Composer vs. Comedian Dispute Leads to ~$40K Attorney Fee Award Against Composer

In a legal dispute involving intellectual property and free speech rights, plaintiff Lebohang Morake, the creator of the opening chant from Disney's The Lion King, sued defendant Learnmore Mwanyenyeka, a comedian, over his public assertion that the chant translates to 'Look, there's a lion. Oh my god' in Zulu. Morake claimed this misrepresentation harmed his reputation and led to confusion among consumers. Mwanyenyeka filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the state law claims, arguing they violated the First Amendment. Morake later dropped the state claims and refocused the lawsuit on federal law, alleging false association and false advertising related to Mwanyenyeka's commercial use of the association with Morake's work. The court ruled in favor of Mwanyenyeka's anti-SLAPP motion, indicating that the original state law claims were dismissed due to their potential infringement on free speech rights.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of both parties' positions and the legal arguments involved. It does not overtly favor either side through biased language or selective emphasis. The focus remains on the legal proceedings and the implications of free speech versus intellectual property rights

Why factuality (75): The article accurately summarizes the court case involving Lebohang Morake and Learnmore Mwanyenyeka, citing the relevant court decision and details of the dispute. However, it omits some context about the outcome of the case, specifically the award of attorney fees, which is mentioned in the title

Why objectivity (85): The article presents the facts neutrally, avoiding overt bias or emotional language. It provides a clear summary of the legal arguments from both sides without taking a stance. The tone remains professional and objective throughout.

Reason logoReasonParty-alignedConservativeFactual 70Objective 658/31/2026
A Liberal Think Tank and an Air Force Major Are Trump's Latest Targets for Speech Policing

President Donald Trump has targeted a progressive think tank, the Center for American Progress (CAP), and an Air Force major for criticizing his policies, allegedly using legal threats to suppress dissent. In early 2025, Trump issued an executive order reaffirming freedom of speech, yet his actions contradict this stance. By mid-2025, he declared a 'crime emergency' in Washington, D.C., deploying over 2,000 National Guard troops, which resulted in minimal arrests. Critics argue these deployments were ineffective and costly, costing over $1.7 billion by late 2026. CAP published a report concluding that the deployments failed to reduce crime, prompting Trump to threaten a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against them. CAP’s leader, Neera Tanden, condemned the threat as an attempt to silence criticism, emphasizing the importance of free speech under the First Amendment.

Bias read (Conservative): The article frames Trump's actions as legitimate responses to perceived threats, emphasizing his legal threats against critics as justified under the First Amendment. It highlights the controversy around his National Guard deployments and lawsuits, portraying them as efforts to combat misinformation

Why factuality (70): The article provides a reasonable overview of Trump's rhetoric and actions related to free speech, but it lacks specific citations or direct quotes from the sources it references. Some statements appear to be paraphrased rather than directly attributed, which slightly reduces the factual reliability

Why objectivity (65): The article exhibits a clear liberal bias, particularly in its characterization of Trump's actions as 'speech policing.' It frames the situation in a manner that favors the perspective of the critics of Trump, using phrases like 'threatening his critics with legal action simply for expressing opinio

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories