Issue: Pop Culture

Do we need “gatekeepers” to prevent us from seeing ugly truths in times of national trauma?

Like former Ronald Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan, I yearn for a kinder, gentler time. Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable about this from Noonan:

Our society can’t live without wise heads who set and maintain standards. In the past week of shock and mourning people mentioned the Zapruder film. They’d all seen the terrible, immediately available, widespread video of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, and his bleeding to death. In days afterward they’d say, “That must be like the Zapruder film when JFK was shot—you all had a lot to process.”

No. We didn’t have to process it because we never saw it. The gatekeepers of the media wouldn’t let the American people see the president’s head shot off. It would be too gruesome and demoralizing, and too inspiring for the mentally ill.

A heartbroken country didn’t need that extra helping of anguish. So, they spared us.

Discuss among yourselves.  

Here we go again. A late-night host is being lionized by the Left. It’s not exactly for truth-telling, as what Jimmy Kimmel said was patently false. When Kimmel refused to apologize and was indefinitely suspended, he became a hero. For The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel is an indication that we are living in a dictatorship (but isn’t everything?):  

A mock-nervous Jon Stewart took to “The Daily Show” desk for a rare Thursday night appearance to address ABC’s decision to kill Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show indefinitely over his malicious remarks about conservative icon Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

“From Comedy Central. It’s the all-new government-approved ‘Daily Show’ with your patriotically obedient host, Jon Stewart,” an announcer began the comedian’s stint, in which he wore a dark suit and red tie similar to President Trump’s signature attire.

“Jawboning and Jimmy Kimmel” is a Free Press headline. The story is by the Editors—and ouch!:

The suspension of his late-night show isn’t a great loss to culture. But the FCC’s coercion undermines our most fundamental values.

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal also knocks the FCC:

Maybe now our progressive friends understand why these columns oppose government control of business and fought liberal cancel culture. Regulatory power in the hands of a willful President can too easily become a weapon against political opponents, including the media.

That’s what happened Wednesday as Brendan Carr, President Trump’s man at the Federal Communications Commission, threatened Disney and its affiliates if they didn’t punish late-night host Jimmy Kimmel for comments about Charlie Kirk. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told a podcaster, in words that could have been uttered by a New Jersey mob boss.

The FCC has power over broadcast licenses, so the threat had teeth…. As a private company, Disney has the right to run or cancel shows as it wishes. Perhaps in this case it saw pressure from government as an excuse to drop Mr. Kimmel, who had turned his show into a daily anti-Trump diatribe. But anyone who thinks this is the free market at work is ignoring the ways government can punish companies. Disney’s executives had to look out for the best interests of their shareholders and the Disney brand.

Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel argues that Jimmy Kimmel was canceling himself until Carr burst into the scene. National Review calls for the abolition of the FCC, as does libertarian Nick Gillespie. Meanwhile, Rich Lowry asks why Kimmel asserted so confidently that the suspect was MAGA, when this was so flagrantly incorrect:

Kimmel was presumably misled by the legacy media’s unwillingness to be forthright about alleged killer Tyler Robinson’s motive and by the obfuscations of Democratic officeholders and progressive commentators. If he thought he was trusting the trusted sources, he made a grievous error.

Because the Kirk assassination doesn’t fit the preferred narrative of a hateful right-winger committing an act of violence — rather, the complete opposite — there hasn’t been a national-crisis-level wave of concern about the motive of the suspect and its potential sources.

Instead, much of the press acts as if it is grappling with an epistemological problem of the depth and subtlety that led to the German physicist Werner Heisenberg arriving at his uncertainty principle in the 1920s (it’s impossible to determine both the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time).

The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson writes that the debate we need to have is not about free speech but rather about the Left’s embrace of violence. Victor Davis Hanson writes that the Left works hard to hide the truth:

Why is the left fabricating the circumstances surrounding and following Kirk’s murder?

In its signature projective style, the left is terrified that the right might follow its own example — by manipulating facts, ginning up street violence, and issuing non-negotiable demands to achieve its agenda.

The Daily Caller has a fascinating story on the suspect’s “trans” love interest’s reported status as a “furry.” Apparently, there is a growing satanist wing of the furry movement.

Charlie Kirk’s funeral takes place on Sunday. Erika Kirk has been appointed to head Turning Point-USA, in accordance with her late husband’s wishes.

We may at long last be about to see a revolution in K-12 education. From an encouraging piece in Civitas by Michael Toth and Daniel Murphy:

The reckoning that’s come for the legacy education model is long overdue. Its overarching goal is to produce college graduates who obtain managerial jobs. Yet entry-level jobs in marketing, programming, human resources, and other white-collar fields are scarce as companies lean into AI and adopt a “” approach. 

This year, a shift toward a new model that returns power to parents and educational consumers has been visible across the three branches of the federal government. The megabill that Congress passed this summer allows taxpayers to write off  on their federal tax bills if they give money to “scholarship granting organizations,” which use the donations to help students afford private schools. The new law also vastly expands the allowable uses of 529 plans, tax-free investment accounts that were  to allow families to save for college. 

These two measures are gamechangers. …

“Why Johnny Can’t Add Anymore” in the Wall Street Journal shows us why we should welcome an education revolution. “Fairfax County Public Schools’ Leaders Won’t Say Why They Are Destroying Students’ Identification Documents” is the headline on a bang-up IW Feature.

“Robert Redford was the Last Movie Star.” That’s the headline on the great essayist Joseph Epstein’s piece on Redford, who died this week. Epstein writes:

Bradley Cooper and Nicole Kidman are good actors, and so too are Gwyneth Paltrow and Brad Pitt. But I’d be hard-pressed to pick any of them out of a police lineup. Today’s movie stars don’t play the role in contemporary culture they once did.

Redford was a decent actor. He could play a quiet cowboy or a slick con man, a straight-laced naval officer or a longing lover, an idealistic politician or a crusading journalist. Whatever the role, though, he was Redford—blond, devastatingly handsome, impossible to imagine as other than American. Make that All-American. …

Once upon a time, the young learned how to converse, dress, court and make love from the movies. The movies were then a part of a substantially unified American culture. Today’s movies are made for select audiences: children, teenagers, single women, certain racial and ethnic groups. Whether the movies aren’t what they used to be because the culture isn’t, or the culture isn’t what it used to be because the movies aren’t, is a question of genuine complication for another time.“

“Quick-thinking dog named Oakley guides Illinois cop to his leash during rescue from burning home.” And a crow named Russell proves that your friends don’t have to be like you to love them.

The Swamp is awash in Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories, which, unlike the late pedophile, refuse to die.

The Left dares to hope this time they’ve got him. Not Epstein, Donald Trump. President Trump has ordered the release of “pertinent” documents in the Epstein case. Not that this is going to satisfy anyone.

The latest development in the Epstein saga is that Trump sent Epstein a “bawdy” letter on Epstein’s 50^th birthday. Ms. Must is delighted to see the old-fashioned word “bawdy” in use, but the allegation, made on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, isn’t the thickest gruel she’s ever seen.

The alleged Trump letter was discovered in a letter-bound album put together by Ghislaine Maxwell, now in federal prison for her role in the scandal, to commemorate the birthday party. The report says:

The president’s past relationship with Epstein is at a sensitive moment. The Justice Department documents, the so-called Epstein files, and who or what is in them are at the center of a storm consuming the Trump administration. On Wednesday, after angry comments about how the files are a hoax created by Democrats, President Trump lashed out at his own supporters for refusing to let the matter go.

The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

The letter concludes: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

The president denies that the letter is his. He vows to sue the Wall Street Journal. Townhall’s Matt Vespa calls the letter story a “total trainwreck,” adding that reactions have been “hilarious.” There have been calls for a Special Counsel to investigate the Epstein scandal. AG Pam Bondi is now accused of being “deep state” for not finding the smoking Client List (do pedophiles keep client lists?) and releasing it. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal applauds the president’s rejection of a Special Counsel:

Donald Trump, skeptical of special counsels. Who would have guessed? That’s a joke, since Mr. Trump’s first term was derailed by the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election. Despite not finding much, Mr. Mueller’s inquiry turned into a lengthy potboiler that kept Washington and the nation on the edge of its seat for nearly two years.

That’s pretty much what would happen under any special counsel to investigate the Jeffrey Epstein investigators. Forget about any immediate disclosure of anything new.

President Trump has always had a magic way with his base. This time he is angry with the elements of MAGA that buy the notion that there’s been an Epstein. He’s never talked to his base this way before.  Peggy Noonan writes that Trump’s supporters see the refusal to release the documents as a failure to drain the swamp (it’s an interesting column—and, hey, you don’t have to agree with everything Noonan says to find it interesting).

At the risk of being a party pooper, Ms. Must refers you to Douglas Murray, who asks, “How many voters really care about Jeffrey Epstein?” (But Tucker Carlson apparently does care.) The White House announced that  President Trump was diagnosed with “chronic venous insufficiency.” In a break with tradition, the White House appears to have been prompt and candid about the president’s condition.

Okay, the Epstein conspiracy theories were sort of expected.

But the Colbert Conspiracy? Senators Adam Schiff and Elizabeth Warren are demanding—demanding, I say!—to know why Stephen Colbert was fired as CBS’ “Late Night host. Could it be to appease Trump, who just won a $16 million suit against CBS’ parent company? Warren wants to know. CBS released a statement saying that the decision was “a purely financial decision,” which The Atlantic quickly questioned. And here I’d thought it was because he isn’t funny. Winner: Greg Gutfeld!

“Happy Independence Day, NPR” is the headline on former NPR editor Uri Berliner’s Free Press piece. Berliner, who lost his perch at NPR by a candid but hardly inflammatory TFP critique of NPR, celebrates public broadcasting’s being on its own after the $9 billion recissions bill eliminated its taxpayer funding:  

The vote is a victory for Republicans who have long had National Public Radio (NPR) in their sights. But it is also a victory for those of any political stripe who believe the government has no business funding the media.

This is not the universal take on the left. Inconsolable Brian Stelter says the loss of public funding for NPR will be “devastating to rural areas.” Presumably because farmers will no longer be able to drive around their corn fields listening to left-wing pap? By the way, there’s no law that says NPR can raise funds to make up for the loss.

Jill Biden’s “work husband,” Anthony Bernal, had pleaded the Fifth Amendment when called to testify by the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating former President Biden’s mental decline. Nevertheless, writing in the U.K. Telegraph, Fred Lukas says that the “true scandal of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline is about to be blown wide open“:

Ultimately, this isn’t just about Joe Biden, a career politician. It’s about the system that allowed him to be propped up like a figurehead, while key decisions may have been made without his understanding or approval. If the elected leader of the country wasn’t the one directing major policy or approving decisions, the American people were deceived.

What legacy media once insisted was partisan conspiracy theory has now become too serious to ignore.

Don’t miss Senator Corey Booker’s railing against a Trump judicial nominee before a dramatic walkout by Senate Dems. Meanwhile, Karl Rove asked in his Wall Street Journal politics column, “Can anything save the Democrats?”

We might also ask: Can anything save higher education?

A group of academics, intellectuals, and civic leaders has just released the Manhattan Statement on Higher Education, which the invaluable Chris Rufo sets forth at City Journal. Worthwhile reading, and you’ll recognize the names of many signatories. Speaking of higher education, veteran political sage Michael Barone argues that the Dems will not be able to count on a growing pool of the college degreed forever: it’s shrinking, and many professions have dropped the degree requirement. Do you consider this good or bad news?

I had a terribly distressing experience yesterday. I called an old and dear friend; somebody I’ve known since the eleventh grade, which is longer ago than I’d like to admit. We chat several times a year. “I don’t know you anymore,” this friend said immediately. What? Yes, “people being snatched off the streets,” and I apparently didn’t care. This was wretchedly fresh this morning when I read Charles C.W. Cooke’s “Everything That Is Going On“:

On Monday, a writer at the New York Times became so convinced that the car in front of her was full of ICE agents coming to “take someone” that she began to panic. As it turned out, the vehicle wasn’t full of ICE agents; it was “an airport limo picking up a passenger.” Still, the mere fact that she had incorrectly thought otherwise — the fact that she had been “obliged to run through such a mental triage,” as she put it — was Extremely Telling. She is tired. Like the rest of us, she is just so tired. Nobody, especially not writers for America’s august paper of record, wants to be forced into hallucinations.