The media's final death knell. Plus, NYT belittles GOP women. And Pete, the NBA.
By Gary Abernathy
Tapper’s Biden book is another in a long line of after-the-fact reporting that should have been done a long time ago
The demise of the far-left (formerly mainstream) media has been a long time in the making, but the death knell probably came in the media’s cover-up — yes, that’s the right word — of President Joe Biden’s rapid mental and physical deterioration.
Accusing Republicans of using “cheap fake” videos, producing countless stories citing staff and other allies attesting to how sharp Biden was “behind closed doors,” and foregoing any attempt at actual investigative reporting to reveal the truth all added up to a major media establishment devoted to protecting the Biden presidency and attempting to deny Donald Trump or any other Republican the chance to re-take the White House.
It all fell apart on live television via Biden’s train wreck of a performance in his debate with Trump. The media was no longer able to cover for him, or make excuses. Facing that stark reality, the news media changed tactics, going on the attack against Biden and joining with panicked Democrats to force him out of the race and prop up Kamala Harris instead.
Now comes the latest “better late than never” investigation, a book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.” Excerpts from the book reveal what most Americans knew all along — Biden’s faculties were rapidly leaving him. Among the biggest “reveals” is a passage describing an episode where Biden failed to recognize George Clooney, a longtime ally and one of the most recognizable people in the world.
In some interviews, Tapper has been acknowledging that he also could have done better. But he and most of the media remain in denial over the extent to which they turned a blind eye to Biden’s obvious health failings — all while Americans were witnessing it with their own eyes. Don’t believe what you see, we were too often told.
That’s why the media will suffer so much from this episode. Most Americans — including Trump haters and Biden supporters — could see for themselves how much Biden was struggling in almost every public appearance. A collection of mainstream news media pretending that it was all just a Fox News and GOP propaganda effort were clearly the ones actually spreading propaganda.
And the credibility of the industry as a whole probably suffered a final death knell. Alternative information sources — podcasts, social media, etc. — have now replaced traditional media for the majority of Americans, especially younger ones.
That’s borne out by Gallup, which finds:
Over the past two decades, significant gaps in trust have also emerged by age. People younger than 50 are much less trusting in the news media than people aged 50 and older, particularly the oldest Americans (those aged 65 and older). An analysis of combined 2022-2024 data to increase sample sizes shows a 17-point gap in trust between the oldest Americans (those aged 65 and older) and those under age 50 -- 43% vs. 26%, respectively.
That’s unfortunate, since it bodes ill for the future, and it allows everyone to stay in their preferred media bubbles, without sufficient avenues to turn to in order to receive fair, balanced and detached reporting. But there’s no one to blame but the media themselves.
NYT attacks Republican women, recommends boots over high heels in how to avoid the dreaded ‘MAGA look’
The New York Times hates Republican women who look feminine. This fact has been made abundantly clear recently by consecutive attacks from two different NYT writers.
As mentioned last week, NYT opinion writer Jessica Grose did an article on “MAGA beauty,” criticizing Republican women for apparently being too attractive, for wearing makeup and curling their hair, and for being Christian and white. She wrote, “Their makeup is heavy; the content creator and comedian Suzanne Lambert called it ‘Republican makeup,’ which she explained to me is ‘matte and flat’: thick eyebrows and lashes, dark eyeliner on the top and bottom lids, a bold lip, lots of bronzer. ‘Inappropriate unless you’re on a pageant stage. And in that case, I would still do it differently,’ she said.”
Rather than experience any regrets about a blanket condemnation of women’s makeup and style choices, the Times doubled down this week in a column by fashion critic Vanessa Friedman.
Friedman’s vicious rant on women of the GOP came in the form of answering a question, allegedly from a reader: “My style can be described as modern minimalist meets classic. I own several sheath dresses that fit and flatter, but when I put them on now, they echo what I see as MAGA style. How can I restyle them without sacrificing my aesthetic?”
In replying, Friedman repeats some of the tropes presented by her colleague, Grose, and says, “There is a very specific look associated with women who subscribe to the Trump worldview, one that is sort of a cross between a Fox newscaster and Miss Universe. It generally involves flowing tresses that are at least shoulder length, false eyelashes, plumped-up cheeks and lips, high heels and, as you say, a sheath dress. The effect underscores an almost cartoonish femininity that speaks to a relatively old-fashioned gender stereotype; the counterpart to this woman is the square-jawed, besuited guy with a side part.”
She goes on to cite several Republican women who are, in her worldview, guilty of looking too feminine, and she claims there is a name for it now, “Mar-a-Lago face.” Seriously.
It is astounding that a major newspaper — which calls itself the “newspaper of record” in the U.S. — would allow such tripe to be published. Aren’t women’s autonomy and choices supposed to be respected? Apparently only when they’re liberal and Democrat.
When I was writing for the Washington Post, I guarantee you that if I had proposed a column criticizing Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits or the questionable hairstyle or makeup (or lack thereof) choices of any number of female Democrat officeholders — or even a critique of the attire of male politicians — such an idea would have been immediately rejected by the editors, and rightfully so.
Apparently, the New York Times considers the ideal feminine look to be … well, we don’t have to guess. Here’s what Friedman recommended: “Keep your hair natural or messy. Keep your makeup minimal and your heels low. Maybe wear boots or even flats or sneakers instead of pumps; if you want height, go blocky or platform rather than stiletto.”
Republican women are strong and independent, and they don’t need me or any other man to come to their defense. My purpose here is to point out the hypocrisy of the New York Times. The newspaper prides itself on being an advocate for the autonomy of women, and for lifting up strong, powerful women. That’s obviously only true when it comes to women who are liberal Democrats. When it comes to conservative women, attacks on their appearance and fashion choices are apparently permissible at the New York Times.
Here’s a radical idea: Women, be they Republican or Democrat, should dress exactly as they choose to dress, and do their hair and makeup exactly as their hearts desire. If that means messy hair, no makeup and rugged boots, go for it. If that means feminine dresses, long flowing curls, more makeup and six-inch heels, more power to you.
(As for the shot at “square-jawed” men who wear suits and part their hair on the side, no alternative was offered by Friedman — maybe she prefers shaggy uncombed hair or perhaps shaved heads, tie-dye t-shirts, jeans and sandals…? Who knows.)
It is shocking that the New York Times is now routinely attacking Republican women for their looks. But let’s face it, it’s more because the Times hates the ideology these GOP women advance than because of how they look advancing it. But it’s the epitome of cheap shots, and should be beneath the dignity of a once-respected major newspaper. But it’s not.
Pete Rose belongs in the BASEBALL Hall of Fame
Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred’s decision to lift the ban on Pete Rose and other players, now that they’re dead, makes Rose eligible to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Pete died last September, and it will always be to MLB’s shame that they waited so long to do the right thing.
The decision was immediately met with disdain from holier-than-thou moralists who were quick to point out all of Pete’s failings as a human being. These self-appointed saints have no room in their hearts for mere mortals.
I don’t defend Pete on any accusations against him. I merely point to the fact that this is the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Moral Majority Hall of Fame. The Baseball Hall of Fame is filled with characters whose personal moral failings are, in some cases, almost as legendary as their baseball accomplishments.
Pete Rose may have been a despicable human being. No matter. I saw him play hundreds of games over the course of his long career and can wholeheartedly vouch for his induction into baseball’s vaunted hall. That probably won’t happen for a while, as the Historical Overview Committee, made up of 16 individuals (12 of their votes are needed for induction) will likely make Pete’s induction an event for a few years down the road, if ever. I hope I’m wrong.
Pete’s records speak for themselves, and the passion with which he played was always inspiring. It is the BASEBALL Hall of Fame. At one time, decades ago, athletes could perhaps be looked up to as moral leaders. That façade has long since disappeared. No one expects that anymore — nor should we ever have expected it.
Be like Pete as a human being? Maybe not. Be like Pete as a baseball player? Absolutely. That’s all that should matter in regard to Pete Rose and the Baseball Hall of Fame.
The NBA Playoffs have been exciting, but some players could bring more of an old-school mentality to the game
This year’s NBA Playoffs have featured some great basketball with a number of exciting finishes. But they’ve also featured some unnecessary showboating and bench sitting.
Through the years, all I’ve heard from the NBA — players, coaches, broadcasters — is that while the regular season might require some “load management” — i.e. players resting even if they’re not injured — when playoff time rolls around, that’s when players play, no matter what.
So it was a little confusing to see Cleveland Cavaliers guard Darius Garland miss the first two games of the playoff series with the Indiana Pacers (which the Cavs eventually lost in five games after a great regular season). Garland was said to have a sprained toe. Now, I know that a sprained toe can be painful. It hurts. But we were told that Garland was participating at practice, and also running on the treadmill. I’m sorry, but at playoff time, if a player can participate in practice — even to a limited degree — and can run on the treadmill, he can give it a go for the game.
ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith also criticized Garland in his own inimitable way, saying, "Darius Garland, listen. A toe injury is significant. Can be very painful. I understand that. You've gotta be damn near crippled if you can't play. You gotta be damn near crippled if you can't play. You've gotta find a way to get out there. … Limp yo' a** out there no matter which way you've got to do it. I don't give a damn. Alright? Find a way. Pad the toe, wear an extra size shoe. Do somethin', but you've got to get out there. You gotta get out there."
Clearly, attitudes have changed over time. When the Los Angeles Lakers’ Wilt Chamberlain took himself out of a Finals game in 1969 against the Boston Celtics because of a knee injury, Celtics’ legend Bill Russell — playing his last game — later criticized Wilt, saying, “Any injury short of a broken leg or broken back isn’t good enough.”
Russell’s comment caused a rift between the two friends for years. Chamberlain had, in fact, asked to go back into the game, but his coach would not let him do so. Russell eventually expressed regret, leading to a rekindled friendship. Russell later spoke at Wilt’s funeral. But his comments represented the kind of attitude Russell — the greatest winner in team sports history — regularly brought to the game.
Bob Pettit, a great forward for the St. Louis Hawks in the 1950s and ‘60s, once played with a cast on a broken wrist in the playoffs. Oscar Robertson of the Cincinnati Royals wore a cumbersome device on his face for a few games in 1967 so he could play through an injury to his mouth. Kevin McHale of the Celtics played the entire 1987 playoffs with a broken foot.
That was then, this is now.
Too many of today’s players also reflect our selfie generation. Tyrese Haliburton, a great Pacer player, celebrated a game 2 win in Cleveland with an obscene gesture that drew a rebuke from the league. Players today celebrate a layup or dunk with primal screams and chest-beating like they just stormed Normandy. Nothing is funnier than skinny players flexing after a big play, but they apparently all feel obliged to do it, muscles or not. Players used to have the mentality of, “Act like you’ve been here before.” Not today.
Nevertheless, there has been some exciting basketball, and the game itself does take center stage once in a while, even between the unnecessary antics and unfortunate sit-outs.
Reliable domestic energy is crucial to freedom & security
In my new column for The Empowerment Alliance, I discuss why all Americans should unite behind the self-evident truth that access to affordable and reliable energy isn’t just good policy, it’s fundamental to our freedom and security.
I point out that our Bill of Rights came about because of the fear of federal overreach, and I note the following:
Americans’ fear of federal overreach was not relegated to the 18th century, and has been proven to be well-founded, whether in regard to our rights or the choices we make for our homes and families. Unwarranted federal interference has been a constant concern throughout our nation’s history – a fear often justified by watching Big Government infringe on the lives of our citizens time and again.
Such excess was never more evident than in the abuse of federal power to utilize threats, engage in market interference, and employ shady tax gimmicks to funnel Americans into a range of narrow choices in regard to energy sources. For four long years, the Biden administration embraced oppressive, heavy-handed bullying tactics designed to coerce Americans into a reliance on energy sources that are dangerously unreliable, routinely inefficient, and resoundingly more expensive.
Thankfully, President Trump reversed much of the Biden administration’s war on affordable energy through executive actions. But as I note, more is at stake than just low-cost energy.
Likewise, to once more guard against government tyranny and oppression, it’s important that access to affordable and reliable energy be clearly defined, and for all Americans to unite behind the self-evident truth that such energy access isn’t just good policy, it’s fundamental to our freedom and security.
You can read it here.
‘MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal’ — for yourself or for that friend or loved one who can’t fathom Trump
“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!