Is it true that "Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’s new supreme leader, struck a defiant tone on Thursday in his first known public comments since succeeding his slain father"?

That's what I'm reading in the NYT, but what proof is there that the man is even alive?

In written statements carried by Iranian state media, Mr. Khamenei said that Iran would pursue “an effective and regret-inducing defense” and that “the lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must also continue to be used.”

Written statements seem more like proof that the man is dead (or in a coma). 

The text of The New York Post article gestures at the uncertainty with the word "allegedly": "Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, allegedly released his first statement Thursday vowing to use the 'lever' of closing the Strait of Hormuz to international energy shipping — after reports circulated that he was in a coma and had his leg amputated after being severely injured in the US-Israeli strikes that killed his father and other family members."

The Post's headline is less careful: "Iran’s new impotent supreme leader releases first statement — after reports he’s in coma, had leg amputated." Did Khamenei release the statement or did others do the releasing and use his name?

"For people who make and sell beef tallow, a golden age has dawned. Consumers spent $9.9 million on food-grade beef tallow in 2025...."

"Jars of it landed on the shelves of Costco this year, and big retailers like Walmart and Target sell it. Fat Brothers beef tallow sells for almost $20 for 14 ounces on Amazon, and business is brisk... Jenni Harris is a fifth-generation rancher whose father in the late 1990s transformed their small conventional cattle feeding operation in South Georgia to an organic one where cows are raised on pasture. She remembers a time when they had no market for the fat from the animals they slaughtered. 'We damn near gave it away' she said...."

From "Beef Tallow, Long a Health Pariah, Rises to the Top of the Food Pyramid/The new dietary guidelines give federal approval to a fat that has slowly caught on with consumers, even as doctors have warned against it" (NYT).

Have you made the transition from seed oils to beef tallow? Or do you think butter is tracking the new food pyramid well enough? Or do you think this new fat advice is just crazy?

I'm reading the comments over there, including: "The man is barefoot as he stands next to a vat of hot oil while removing a drippy bird. What can go wrong?" And: "Anyone that works over a vat of 400 degree oil barefoot shouldnt be in charge of anything safety-related be it food, drugs, or healthcare."

They're responding to this photo, which is taken from RFK Jr.'s own social media:

And I like the NYT's correction at the bottom: "An earlier version of this article misstated how much consumers spent on beef tallow in 2025. It was $9.9 million, not $900 million." That's kind of a never mind correction. They wrote this whole article about the hot new business that is beef tallow and then it turned out to be on 1.1% of what they thought it was!

What's worse, the Secretary of Health's risky approach to home cooking or The New York Times's embarrassing and extreme botching of the dollar amount as it conducts its supposedly professional journalism?

And by the way, while RFK's feet deserve some attention, a lot of us are noticing his torso. He's 71 years old, and look at him. And he's eating beef tallow.

Enough of that "and his wife" business.

This is too little too late:

They're playing catch up now, after the arraignment, but decent journalism should have required referring to her by name all along. She was arrested for a reason, so there should be some specificity in the charges against her. Without that, we got the false impression that she was swept in as an appendage of the man.

Every time I heard "and his wife," I thought of the "Gilligan's Island" theme song. The subordination of the female character even in those lyrics has always bugged me.

Now, if you're charged with a crime, you'll prefer to be downplayed, but Cilia Flores doesn't deserve that benefit. 

"On too many stories, the press has missed the story. Because we've taken into account the perspective of advocates and not the average American."

"Or we put too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites, and not enough on you."

Said this CBS News man, presumably the current anchor of the "Evening News," which posts this clip without telling us the man's name....

"On too many stories, the press has missed the story. Because we've taken into account the perspective of advocates and not the average American. Or we put too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites, and not enough on you."

That changes now. The new CBS Evening News… pic.twitter.com/NKdvRJjYCS

— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) January 1, 2026

I have no idea who this man is, I don't find his delivery confidence-inspiring, and I haven't watched the CBS Evening News since the days of its famously confidence-inspiring figurehead Walter Cronkite. 

I guess this clip, which appeared at the top of my "For you" feed at X, is supposed to make me believe that change is afoot at CBS. I'm not going to start watching the show to find out. I'll be seeing — and blogging — video clips as they appear on websites I read.

"What we have is Karoline Leavitt's soundbite claiming they are evildoers in America (rapists, murderers, etc.). But isn't there much more to ask in light of the torture that we are revealing?"

"Tom Homan and Stephen Miller don't tend to be shy. I realize we've emailed the DHS spox, but we need to push much harder to get these principals on the record."

Wrote Bari Weiss, in an internal memo justifying her action, noting the failure to "present the administration's argument."

Quoted in "Scoop: Weiss told top '60 Minutes' producers that delayed segment had problems" (Axios).

Also at Axios: "Yanked '60 Minutes' episode aired in Canada." 

It's easy to find the whole segment on line, but I'm not going to link to it.

Here's the NYT article about the controversy: "Turmoil at CBS News After Bari Weiss Pulls a ‘60 Minutes’ Segment/Several veteran correspondents questioned how Ms. Weiss, the new CBS News editor in chief, had handled the segment, after she defended her decision on a call with the newsroom." Excerpt:

"My job is to make sure that all stories we publish are the best they can be. Holding stories that aren’t ready for whatever reason..."

"... that they lack sufficient context, say, or that they are missing critical voices — happens every day in every newsroom. I look forward to airing this important piece when it’s ready."

Said Bari Weiss, quoted in "'60 Minutes’ Pulled a Segment. A Correspondent Calls It ‘Political.' Sharyn Alfonsi, a '60 Minutes' correspondent, criticized the network’s decision to remove her reporting from Sunday’s edition of the show" (NYT).

ADDED: Oh, for the golden age of "60 Minutes":

 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Detailed Explanation (@detailedexplanation)

Help me think of a term to apply to articles like this, something that expresses why it bothers me so much.

It's not "fake news," because it's not even news:

Here's a link to the article, in The Washington Post, which I'm not even reading. I don't read articles that fall into this category. I'm just seeking a name for the category. The headline and the photograph do engage me. They're almost funny, but I feel some empathy for the people who the Washington Post seems to believe are out there hungering for whatever this is.

ADDED: One idea is "the news for women," which is a tag I began in 2011 but hadn't used since 2016. I just forgot about it, but it might express what I'm looking for here, though it has the obvious limitation. I think there are men in the (perceived) audience for this kind of emotional support.

"During an interview in September 2024, Mr. Dokoupil challenged the author Ta-Nehisi Coates about a new book he had written on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

"Mr. Dokoupil told Mr. Coates that some of the material in the book 'would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist,' adding, 'what is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place?'... Some CBS journalists objected to how Mr. Dokoupil had handled the interview, and the news division’s leadership rebuked the anchor on a newsroom-wide conference call, saying the interview had fallen short of editorial standards. That prompted Shari Redstone, the owner of Paramount at the time, to defend Mr. Dokoupil and reprimand her own executives, saying 'they made a mistake' in questioning the anchor...."

From "Tony Dokoupil Is Named Anchor of ‘CBS Evening News’/He replaces John Dickerson and Maurice DuBois in one of the most high-profile decisions of Bari Weiss’s early tenure as the network’s editor in chief" (NYT).

Here's how Bari Weiss's Free Press covered the story at the time: "How Is CBS Marking October 7? By Admonishing Tony Dokoupil":

CNN insanity.

My screenshot from X, showing the Grok fact check that's easy to display:

 

And here's the whole video clip that should have any sane person saying That can't be right:

"WTF is going on here with Michael Wolff giving PR strategy to Jeffrey Epstein?"

Said the podcaster Brian Reed, quoted by The Guardian in "Blurred lines: how Michael Wolff aspired to be part of elite circles he wrote about/The writer who features prominently in newly released Jeffrey Epstein emails has achieved extraordinary access but faced questions about his journalistic ethics."

Wolff's attempt at an explanation: "I was engaged then in an in-depth conversation with Epstein about his relationship with Trump and this seems to be part of that conversation."

The Guardian also quotes what NYT reporter Maggie Haberman said about Wolff back in 2018 (when his Trump-bashing book "Fire and Fury" came out: "He believes in larger truths and narratives.... So he creates a narrative that is notionally true, that’s conceptually true; the details are often wrong."

Reminds me of the old Ratherism "fake but accurate."

Back to The Guardian:

"If it was mentioned that ‘identity’ is aware of this or ‘identity’ say they’re looking at it — that was enough to stop anybody else going anywhere near it."

Said Cath Leng, quoted in "'I was forced out of BBC News over gender critical views'/Cath Leng claims younger LGBT reporters acted as ‘gatekeepers’ on trans stories and gender critical coverage was censored" (London Times).

"Identity" refers to the "learning and identity" desk, which acted as "gatekeepers" on trans stories according to Leng, who said "These people were treated as experts simply because they were believers in the idea of gender identity. The reason they were considered to have expertise is of course because nobody else understands it. So they’re allowed to spout this gobbledegook and they’re treated as experts when it comes to which language to use."

When one of her gender critical pitches was accepted at a news meeting because it was a “great story”, Leng said that fellow journalists were so fearful they could only express support in secret. She said: “Somebody who was present slipped me a card as we were all leaving this session. It just said on the back, ‘you’re right, keep going’. She felt she couldn’t tell me directly. It was like a secret, masonic handshake.”..

In other BBC news: "BBC in crisis: why did Tim Davie and Deborah Turness resign? Director general and head of news quit amid accusations of bias over Trump and trans issues at broadcaster" (The Guardian).

"The BBC 'doctored' a Donald Trump speech by making him appear to encourage the Capitol Hill riot..."

"... according to an internal whistleblowing memo seen by The Telegraph. A Panorama programme, broadcast a week before the US election, 'completely misled' viewers by showing the president telling supporters he was going to walk to the Capitol with them to 'fight like hell,' when in fact he said he would walk with them 'to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

A Telegraph TikTok, below the fold (or read the Telegraph article: "BBC ‘doctored’ Trump speech, internal report reveals"):

"So how did The [London] Times, a pillar of quality British journalism since the 18th century, blow the story so badly?"

The question is asked, in "How a London newspaper botched a New York political story" (Semafor).

The answer is: hilariously. 

As the New York mayor’s race approaches, The Times of London has accelerated its push for more, and largely hostile, coverage of Mamdani. That campaign has been driven internally by Margi Conklin [who]... reached out to an email address the reporter believed belonged to the former mayor of New York.... 

Semafor reached out to a Gmail address our sources believed to be the one used by The Times.

“You are correct. It was me. The real Bill DeBlasio,” the person who controls the email address responded. The person didn’t respond to further questions, and phone calls to two numbers associated with the email address went unanswered....

Apparently, there's someone else named Bill DeBlasio.

I got to this story from here:

Spot the error in the People magazine headline: "Woody Allen's Ex-Wife, Mia Farrow, Shares Tribute to Diane Keaton Despite Complicated Past."

 Link to article.

"As she took the helm, [Bari] Weiss sent around a friendly-sounding note to the news staff that had one particularly notable line."

"Among her 'core journalistic values,' she wrote, is 'journalism that holds both American political parties to equal scrutiny.' Sounds good, but the two parties are far from equal these days. 'CBS should brace for a heavy dose of bothsiderism,' wrote Oliver Darcy in his Status newsletter, observing that the Free Press has, as its central thesis, 'that Trump and his supporters are largely right about the cultural rot of the woke-elite' and liberal overreach (wokeness) is a bigger problem than Trump’s existential threats to American democracy...."

Writes Margaret Sullivan, in "Bari Weiss is a weird and worrisome choice as top editor for CBS News/When Weiss was named editor-in-chief, it was the latest turn in the network’s confounding departure from its roots" (The Guardian).

Here's my post from yesterday reprinting Weiss's note with 10 principles of journalism. My only comment was "I particularly like #6."

#6 was "Journalism that holds both American political parties to equal scrutiny."

So what if "the two parties are far from equal these days"? When you hold unequal entities to equal scrutiny what you see is their inequality!

I think Margaret Sullivan has lost track of the meaning of equality. It doesn't mean reaching equal outcomes. It means applying the same standard. 

"Bari Weiss outlines 10 principles that will guide her leadership of CBS News."

 Headline at Axios, with this list from Weiss's memo to CBS News staff:

1. Journalism that reports on the world as it actually is.
2. Journalism that is fair, fearless and factual.
3. Journalism that respects our audience enough to tell the truth plainly — wherever it leads.
4. Journalism that makes sense of a noisy, confusing world.
5. Journalism that explains things clearly, without pretension or jargon.
6. Journalism that holds both American political parties to equal scrutiny.
7. Journalism that embraces a wide spectrum of views and voices so that the audience can contend with the best arguments on all sides of a debate.
8. Journalism that rushes toward the most interesting and important stories, regardless of their unpopularity.
9. Journalism that uses all of the tools of the digital era.
10. Journalism that understands that the best way to serve America is to endeavor to present the public with the facts, first and foremost.

I particularly like #6.

"People are using words like depressing and doomsday – feels like some sort of doomsday."

Said one reporter, quoted in "'It’s not a good place right now’: CBS News staffers are ‘literally freaking out’ about Bari Weiss taking over newsroom/'People are using words like depressing and doomsday – feels like some sort of doomsday,’ one source told The Independent about the mood inside CBS News right now" (The Independent).

Network staffers also told The Independent that Weiss would have a tough time gaining the respect of the newsroom because they see her as something of a “political operative,” adding that CBS News is already “not a welcoming place for outsiders.” “There are so many people who've come in here and been chewed up and spit out that the idea that somebody that we don't want is going to come in here and somehow manage to survive this is, I think, laughable,” the CBS reporter declared. “So she's in for, I would venture to guess, a rough ride.”

"In April 1965, the magazine published his extraordinary cover image of an 18-week-old fetus, luminous in its amniotic sac..."

"... seemingly floating through space, along with an extensive photo essay. Nilsson had worked closely with a Stockholm hospital, where he had a makeshift studio set up. He’d get a call when a woman had had a miscarriage or came in for an abortion, which had been legally permissible in Sweden since 1938 if the woman’s life was in danger. The photographer would then rush over with his Hasselblad camera. Only one image in the photo essay was of a live fetus in utero. All the others, including the groundbreaking cover, were of fetuses that had been surgically removed. In the 1980s, after learning that his pictures were being used at anti-abortion demonstrations, Nilsson refused to allow them to be republished...."

From "The 25 Most Influential Magazine Covers of All Time/Four editors, a creative director and a visual artist met to debate and discuss the best of print media — and its enduring legacy" (NYT)(free-access link, so you can see all 25 covers and the story behind each of them).

I vividly remember that Life Magazine cover, "Drama of Life Before Birth," April 30, 1965. If I remember correctly — from 60 years ago when I was 14 — the article had nothing to do with abortion and readers were shielded from the notion that these unborn children were dead. We were invited to feast our eyes on the miracle of life, and we had never seen pictures like this before.

That Life cover ranks 6th on the list, well above the cover I would have put first, Saul Steinberg's "View of the World From 9th Avenue," which is only #14.

"Publicly, though, Mr. Trump’s deputies still insisted that they had not politicized the funding lapse."

"Speaking at a press briefing on Wednesday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, maintained instead that the layoffs, in particular, were necessary because of the realities of the budget."

Those are the last 2 sentences of a news article in the NYT with a headline that states a contrary opinion as if it were fact: "White House Uses Shutdown to Maximize Pain and Punish Political Foes/The Trump administration forged ahead with plans to conduct mass layoffs, as the fiscal standoff appeared to intensify."

We all agree with the opinion, of course, don't we?

Is the White House using the shutdown to maximize pain and punish political foes?

No, it is simply dealing with the realities of the shutdown.

No, but it should.

Yes, and it should.

Yes, and it ought instead to deal neutrally with the realities of the shutdown.

Unlike the NYT, I refrain from reading minds. I stand aloof and await further information.

 

pollcode.com free polls

"If all this comes to pass, it will cement [Bari] Weiss as a key figure in shaping the national news environment, just five years after her much publicized resignation from the New York Times..."

"... over what she characterized as a censorious and hostile workplace. This came in the wake of the resignation of the editorial page editor, James Bennet, after a staff uproar over the publication of Senator Tom Cotton’s opinion piece calling for military intervention against Black Lives Matter protesters.... If Paramount’s acquisition of the Free Press goes through, Weiss will probably be in a position to recruit a network of snitches and rightwing thought police, both from within existing CBS staff and from her own publication, ensconced throughout one of the four largest US media conglomerates. CBS staffers are reportedly 'apoplectic' at the news of her impending role.... When Trump first ran for office, Weiss positioned herself as a 'Never Trumper'.... [Later] she saw the left’s 'overzealous, out-of-touch, hysterical reaction to him' as 'extraordinarily authoritarian and totalitarian in its impulses'.... ... Trump could never operate in the kinds of spaces where Weiss has been able to flourish.... [S]he is uniquely well-suited to champion the prerogatives of those in academia, media, publishing and similar sectors who feel threatened by progressive social movements."

From "Disgruntled NYT journalist to ‘anti-woke’ power grab: how far can Bari Weiss go?/After leaving the New York Times, she turned her Substack into an unshakable pro-Israel voice. Now as Paramount eyes acquisition of her company, Weiss is poised to become Trump’s ally among media elites" (Guardian).