News media: FBI officials aren't 'shaken,' they are 'badly shaken.' Plus: 'TV cowboy' culture. DEI run amok. Random thoughts.

By Gary Abernathy

‘How did that make you feel?’ is required reporting today

Photo by Nik on Unsplash

In all his decades as a news reporter — working in both print and broadcast media — I think it’s safe to say that there’s one question Walter Cronkite never asked: “How did that make you feel?”

Whether covering the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war, the Pentagon Papers or Watergate, neither Cronkite nor contemporaries like David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, Howard K. Smith, etc. — or forerunners like Edward R. Murrow — ever insulted readers, listeners or viewers with questions designed to make sure everyone could feel their subjects’ pain. They were interested in facts, not feelings.

Sadly, that’s not the case with today’s news media. Too often, today’s media is as focused on whether feelings have been hurt at least as much as recounting the factual events we depend on them to convey.

Case in point: When word spread that the Trump administration was asking for resignations from several top FBI officials, the New York Times — after reporting the facts — added that “the quick and unexpected nature of the requests has left employees badly shaken.” Not just “shaken,” mind you, but “badly shaken.” It’s not clear how the Times differentiated one level of “shaken” from another.

Likewise, when covering the Trump administration’s offer of buyouts to shrink the federal workforce, a CNN headline focused on employees being “confused, angered” by the offer, with the story relating that one Mississippi USDA worker “was most offended that the OPM email referenced that federal employees should be ‘loyal.’”

To be clear, what was confusing, angering and offensive to these employees was that they were being offered seven months of pay to quit their jobs. Horrible.

But whether one agrees or not with the emotional reaction of various individuals to life events, the “reporting” offers a sampling of how far the far-left (formerly mainstream) media has veered from its traditional mission to accurately and dispassionately report on actions and events. The hyper-focus of recent years on “feelings” is one reason that the description of “snowflake” has taken hold in our culture.

If they were around today to cover events like the federal workforce reduction, Cronkite and his contemporaries would likely have sat down with an administration official to ask about the reasoning behind the move, and probably a union official to respond to the administration official, and offered an analysis on the cost/benefit of massive layoffs. With the possible exception of Barbara Walters on one of her primetime “Barbara Walters Specials,” “How did that make you feel?” would not have made the cut.

But that is where we are, a generation of “reporters” making sure we all know how badly people have had their feelings hurt when life turns out to not always be a bowlful of cherries.

And that’s the way it is.

Most old TV westerns were culturally ahead of their time

Photo by Larkin Hammond on Unsplash

When settling in to watch an old episode of “Gunsmoke” recently, I noticed this disclaimer prior to the show:

“This program contains outdated cultural depictions. Viewer discretion is advised.”

Outdated cultural depictions?

That warning was obviously ordered by a young exec who thought he was protecting modern viewers from being exposed to “cowboys versus Indians” stereotypes. He should watch an episode or two.

In fact, old TV westerns like “Gunsmoke,” “Bonanza,” “The Rifleman” and others were culturally ahead of their time. Virtually all of them sympathetically portrayed “Indians” as victims. They sided with minorities and the downtrodden in general.

They frequently included plots wherein Matt Dillon, Ben Cartwright, Lucas McCain and their friends or families came to the aid of minorities, women or children who were being mistreated by the majority.

“Indians” were often used as stand-ins for African Americans, and were shown being discriminated against by white townsfolk or ranchers. Standing up for the powerless was a frequent theme of the TV westerns of the 1950s and ‘60s.

In fact, a disclaimer on old TV westerns would more accurately say:

“This program contains lessons that apply as much or more today than when it originally aired. Pay close attention.”

Reporters’ focus on Trump ending DEI is understandable, since they almost all work for companies embracing DEI

Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash

There is much coverage and handwringing over President Trump’s actions on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programs across the government, particularly as he examines whether it is being emphasized at the expense of good decision-making.

It’s not hard to understand the alarm when you remind yourself that journalists at places like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc., are working for organizations that heavily tout their own DEI bona fides. For instance:

The New York Times: In 2020, the Times commissioned an internal study to determine how it could do better to increase diversity, resulting in a goal, among other goals, to “ensure our journalism benefits from the judgment of a more diverse and inclusive newsroom” as well as to “increase the percentage of Black and Latino colleagues in leadership by 50 percent by the end of 2025.” Those are just a couple of items from a very long list of goals and promises.

The Washington Post: The Post publishes an annual report on its diversity efforts, believing that its journalism mission “is best served by a diverse, multi-generational workforce with varied life experiences and perspectives.” The Post notes, “This report provides both snapshots and trended data views of the gender and racial composition of our workforce over a five-year period.” Because that’s what matters when it comes to good journalism.

CNN: As part of Warner Bros. Discovery (for now, at least), CNN’s hiring is under that company umbrella, which claims to build a workforce under a “Diversity in Action” banner that touts diversity and inclusion promises and actions that are too many to enumerate here. You really need to check it out for yourself, but in short, “diversity and inclusion” are front and center.

MSNBC/NBC: NBCUniversal’s DEI commitment is second to none, with an entire web section devoted to describing the company’s belief that “a diverse, equitable, and inclusive company is a more innovative and successful one.” Highlighted is a quote from Craig Robinson, the company’s “chief diversity officer,” who says, “Our company is centered around respect and support of one another and celebrating our differences. As a home for storytellers, we have the platform and obligation to help inform, entertain, and shed light on important issues and underrepresented populations.”

On and on it goes, with media outlets outdoing themselves to virtue-signal how wonderfully diverse and inclusive they are.

Private companies can embrace whatever hiring and personnel criteria they want. More power to them. But it’s important for everyone to understand that the far-left (formerly mainstream) media’s reaction to — and their reporting on — Trump’s effort to de-emphasize DEI across government agencies is shaped by their own pro-DEI prejudices, embedded within the companies for which they work. It can be safely assumed that many of the journalists reporting on the Trump administration’s effort to emphasize merit over a race or gender-based numbers game are themselves beneficiaries of DEI hiring policies.

I’m a believer in the need for some policies that, in positions both in the public and private sectors, ensure opportunities for minorities beyond purely merit-based hiring and promotions. It can be a vicious Catch-22. How can those who are never given a chance to learn new skills or demonstrate their talents ever become qualified enough to get hired or promoted purely on merit?

As I wrote in a Washington Post column about the Justice Department under the first Trump administration investigating universities for discriminating against white people under the schools’ affirmative action policies, white people are doing just fine. They always will in this country.

What we need to ensure is that having access to our fabled “level playing field” is the opportunity minorities are afforded, as I detailed in a column supporting the idea of reparations for the descendants of slaves. In the U.S., white people begin most job hunts and earning opportunities with a considerable head start.

But the effort to ensure equal opportunity should not result in the requirement to fill a pre-determined number of jobs with minorities, or meet a quota, as recent DEI initiatives clearly do. When the New York Times promises to “increase the percentage of Black and Latino colleagues in leadership by 50 percent by the end of 2025,” it is committing to a quota that the employment pool may not yet support, when it comes to the skills, knowledge and experience really needed to fill “leadership” jobs.

But while filling newsroom leadership jobs with potentially unqualified people will be bad for journalism, it won’t necessarily lead to life-or-death consequences. That’s why Trump and new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are correct to question, and explore, whether overt DEI initiatives have weakened our armed forces. Maybe they have, and maybe they haven’t — but it cannot be out of bounds to raise the question. The stakes are too high.

Ensuring equal opportunities is a good thing. For decades, the law has required all employers to abide by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules, which prohibit discrimination in hiring. But DEI initiatives take that notion much further, virtually requiring “diverse” hiring, emphasizing diversity over knowledge and skills.

“Equal opportunity” is good. It’s something we should all get behind. But “opportunity” is not the same as “achievement.” There are certain jobs and certain objectives — jobs involving the national defensive, mass transit, public safety roles — where a short-term effort to force diversity could have devastating consequences.

Random thoughts on this and that…

When President Trump’s tariff threats resulted in immediate capitulation by Mexico and Canada — with both countries promising to up their game in preventing fentanyl and illegal immigrants from crossing their borders into the U.S. — the far-left (formerly mainstream) media was at first stunned, and then resorted to the talking point that the two countries only promised to do what they were mostly already doing. Wrong. Both countries’ pledges clearly include more manpower and spending to police the borders — and if that doesn’t happen, the “pause” in leveling the tariffs will end and they will go into effect. Legacy media is determined to find ways never to give Trump credit, a stance that continues to erode their credibility. …

… One local news station in my region, WLWT Channel 5 in Cincinnati, seems to go out of its way to misrepresent President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. They frequently air stories about “local immigrant fears” that fail to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. A story this week, for instance, reported on Cincinnati City Council’s efforts to “create outreach to immigrant communities.” The story includes this line: “It’s all in response to growing fears among immigrants as federal agents round up immigrants around the country.” No, federal agents are rounding up illegal immigrants, not immigrants in general. It’s a crucial distinction that too many in the media fail to make clear — which raises the suspicion that the omission is intentional. …

… Democrats, unable to effectively mount opposition to President Trump’s various actions (as if they’re required to do so no matter what) have resorted to trying to get under his skin by referring to Elon Musk as “co-president Musk.” Yeah, that’ll work. Democrats are taking to the streets to protest Musk’s DOGE committee’s efforts to identify waste in government. Please, continue to be the party defending government waste. Great plan. …

… President Trump’s surprise suggestion that the U.S. could “take over” Gaza was first met with stunned responses from almost every quarter. But, as is often the case with Trump’s off-the-rail comments, it’s starting to gain traction. Even the New York Times, in a lead analysis on Thursday, acknowledged that it “may force the sides to reconsider long-held positions, stir things up dramatically and lead to new openings,” as one former Israeli security adviser put it. Read the story here.

‘MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal’ — for yourself or for that friend or loved one confused about the election

“MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal — And Other Shocking Notions” is a great addition to the library of MAGA Trump supporters, or the perfect gift for non-MAGA friends and loved ones to help them make sense of the 2024 election results. It’s available on Amazon. Buy it here.

The book (actually much thicker than the illustrations above indicate — the hardcover and paperback are each 453 pages) is a compilation of many of the nearly 200 columns I wrote for the Washington Post from 2017 to 2023 (and a handful of columns I wrote about Trump for The (Hillsboro) Times-Gazette from 2015 to 2017). The columns cover a variety of topics, but they particularly focus on Trump’s rise to political prominence and help explain his appeal.

Here’s a link to a website dedicated to the book.

Sign up or share this newsletter

Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you!