intramuralist ™

Perhaps you saw this.

First, it was actress Jennifer Lawrence, sitting down with The New York Times a week ago for an episode of The Interview podcast. The host questioned Lawrence, noting how in the past, she has been politically outspoken, but yet, she hasn’t been making many public comments as of late. Lawrence said:

“I don’t really know if I should… as we’ve learned election after election, celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for. So then what am I doing? I’m just sharing my opinion on something that’s going to add fuel to a fire that’s ripping the country apart. We are so divided.”

Next during the week came actress Sydney Sweeney. She sat down with GQ Magazine, who brought up last summer’s attention-grabbing American Eagle jeans ad and how Sweeney was the focus of what became a bit of an incessant political flashpoint. “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans,” said the ad. Utilizing a play on the word “jeans” vs. “genes,” critics scoffed at the blonde-haired, blue-eyed caucasian woman being the focus. GQ asked about her political involvement. The interviewer actually began discussing such by saying “you have become very swept up in politics.” Responded Sweeney:

“I did a jean ad. I mean, the reaction definitely was a surprise, but I love jeans. All I wear are jeans. I’m literally in jeans and a T-shirt every day of my life.

And when pressed once more by GQ about the ad’s criticism and if there was something more she wanted to say, “specifically in this political climate,” Sweeney said: 

“I think that when I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear.”

I respect Lawrence and Sweeney, and I respect their recognition that celebrity status doesn’t mean their perspective is any more or less valuable than another. I respect their current resistance to join in the rhetorical fray. Sometimes, unfortunately, it has felt that a celebrity’s insertion of political opinion or endorsement has appeared most as an attempted moral scolding; that’s not effective nor attractive.

It reminds me of the simple wisdom from basketball great, Michael Jordan, some 35 years ago, at the height of his fame. When asked why he wouldn’t publicly endorse a North Carolina Democrat who shared his views years ago, Jordan shrewdly quipped, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”

We see that in Lawrence and Sweeney, two widely popular actresses who have significant, diverse followings.

Lawrence added last week that she doesn’t want her political opinions to deter people from watching her films.

“I want to protect my craft so that you can still get lost in what I’m doing, what I’m showing. If I can’t say something that’s going to speak to some kind of peace or lowering the temperature or some sort of solution, I just don’t want to be a part of the problem. I don’t want to make the problem worse.” 

Sweeney, too, added, “I’ve always believed that I’m not here to tell people what to think.”

It seems each has recognized the potential scolding. It also seems that…

Not everything has to be about politics.

Not everyone needs to speak about politics.

And how refreshing that can actually be.

Respectfully…

AR

Sometimes government is really frustrating, albeit for different people for different reasons. Personally I get frustrated with its inefficiency, massive deficit spending, and its attempt to play the moral authority of the land, with or without an acknowledgement of God. I do not believe it is qualified to be a moral authority.

I get frustrated even more so with the political hypocrisy that gets in a sagacious government’s way. Note a few brief bits of context and perspective…

• Hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform. 
• Synonyms for hypocrisy include sanctimoniousness, false virtue and deceit.
• Unfortunately, it’s one of the things that many elected conservatives and liberals have in common.

One of the situations in which hypocrisy is seemingly most staggeringly, bipartisanly obvious is in a government shutdown. Perhaps the current shutdown will end soon now that the latest election cycle is over; however, the duration of this shutdown is increasing frustrating.

Government shutdowns occur when Congress fails to pass funding legislation required to finance the federal government. The legislation needs to be passed by a majority in the House, by 60 votes in the Senate, and then signed by the President.  

Since 1976, the U.S. federal government has had 27 funding gaps. Prior to 1980, however, funding gaps did not lead to shutdowns. A legal opinion that year stated that government work must stop if Congress hasn’t agreed to pay for it; a later opinion allowed essential government services to continue.

Our elect, no less, have been quite uniform in their stated disdain. Note their following previous descriptions of a government shutdown:

• “Always a bad idea”
• “Completely preventable”
• “A government shutdown serves no one”
• “A potential disaster”
• “Bad policy and politics”
• “Entirely unnecessary and has harmed our economy and our reputation in the world”
• “A politics of idiocy”
• “Almost never works”

Said by Democrats? Republicans? Half of the above are attributed to each. They admit shutdowns are bad for we the people. They also each utilize a shutdown for political leverage. Hence, the hypocrisy.

The four longest shutdowns are listed below and why one party wouldn’t agree; we are not suggesting their reasoning is just or unjust; we are simply noting the role each party has played.

• 1995–1996 — During the Clinton (D) administration (21 days). The House and Senate both had Republican majorities. Congress wanted significant spending cuts, which Pres. Clinton vetoed.  
• 2013 — During the Obama (D) administration (16 days). The Senate had a Democratic majority, and the House had a Republican majority. A minority group of House Republicans wanted to first alter the timing of the Affordable Care Act’s implementation.  
• 2018–2019 — During the first Trump (R) administration (35 days). The Senate had a Republican majority, and the House had a Democratic majority. Pres. Trump wanted funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. House Democrats did not; it would end up not being included.
• Now — During the second Trump (R) administration (36 days as of this posting). All three branches of government are led by a Republican majority, albeit not with the 60 vote Senate threshold. A majority of Senate Democrats first want an extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies implemented as a COVID-19 emergency measure.  

The parties take turns attempting to utilize their perceived political leverage, seemingly deprioritizing how a shutdown hurts so many. Then they attempt to manipulate us into thinking the other party is maliciously motivated (i.e. they want to starve people… they care more for illegal aliens than for you…), thus often spending more time talking about what the other party is doing wrong rather than taking the time to themselves do right.

My sincere frustration exists, therefore, because we have elect on both the left and the right who hypocritically converse, refuse to compromise, treat one another with lavish disrespect, and can’t seem to figure out how to navigate the hard. Clearly, government should be better and more.

Respectfully…

AR

For years we did little for Halloween. It wasn’t so much about its ancient Celtic origin, but rather because we lived on a rather large plot of land nestled between multiple housing developments amid a golf community; kids simply did not come to our house.

When moving South and into an actual neighborhood, no less, it was immediately evident that the evening of October 31st was a community event. There’s just something about community that is so obviously good and right and true. 

And so we made the decision — having spent close to nil on the observance in years past — to be that house. Yes, the house with the regular, full-size candy bars.

This year we offered M&M’s, Reese’s, Reese’s Oreos, Skittles, Sour Patch Kids and Swedish Fish with various drinks available, too, for kids and adults. Several dear friends came and joined in the fun, and the nine of us sat out on the front porch, handing out some 500 bars to the ardent trick-or-treaters. 

The response was absolutely delightful. 

“Look!” One would yell. “I told you they had big candy bars!”

“You’re the G.O.A.T.!” squealed another adolescent. “Best house in the neighborhood!”

Oh, the kids were kind. The teens, too. I’m sure there are many who adopt a similar practice. There are also places in the hood where the number of candy collectors is in the thousands. 

But such got me thinking about the why behind the response…

All we did was hand out a little bigger bar to the kids and offer treats to the adults. It was an unexpected act of generosity. 

Let me be clear; there’s a difference between being generous and being charitable. While the words are often used interchangeably, “charitable” implies giving to the needy, whereas “generous” is a broader term for being liberal in giving or sharing.

But generosity is a deliberate act of kindness. It’s an expression of value. And it’s giving someone something without expectation of anything in return. 

Sure, we knew several of the masked little monsters who made their way up the short walkway. Several adult friends also sauntered by. But the clear majority of the candy seekers were people we did not know; they were strangers. The small, generous gesture was not based on any existent relationship.

As the costume-clad kid traffic dwindled and the evening came to a close, those of us on the porch sat and reflected on what a wonderful evening it was. What did we observe and conclude in a most tremendous night of people watching? …

… the Skittles went fast…

… the recently released Reese’s Oreo Cup was a surprise hit — especially with the adults…

… water is so often welcomed…

… the family all dressed up as the cast, celebrating the 10 year anniversary of “Hamilton,” was ingenious…

And most of all, generosity is meaningful.

Generosity doesn’t have to be a lot; the amount matters less than the intention.

But generosity makes people feel seen, appreciated and important.

Generosity is a most beautiful thing.

Respectfully…

AR

It’s good for so many things…

We can keep in touch with friends we no longer do life with but wish not to completely disconnect. We can remain still decently hip, learning all the trendy new sayings such as “bussin,’” “bet” or even “6-7.” And if we ever run out of creative ideas in the kitchen, social media can provide us with an endless supply of new recipes for every event and special occasion.

There’s great information and some sweet, witty content. Personally I’m quite fond of Suzy Karadsheh’s “The Mediterranean Dish” (love that Mediterranean diet!),  TJ Therrien’s comedic gold pointing out our distinct birth order quirks, and Melanie Sanders’ hilarious rendition of the ever popular “We Do Not Care Club.”

And yet, such is the same place where many fall prey to the propensity to mindlessly doom scroll, witnessing the carefully curated lives of others, seeing only what they want us to see. Note: it’s not real life; it’s incomplete at best. The pics posted are typically in search most of likes and loves. It is the ultimate comparison environment.

Still, too, it’s the place where the rants and raves take place, often political, and there’s rarely actual healthy conversation or any invitation to the diverse thinker; participants are likelier prone to say “I can’t believe you think that way… and if you really do think that way, then shame on you; you’re not as good of a person as I thought you were.” And just like that even the intelligent justify judging or thinking less of another.

Then comes the ultimate sign of annoyance, offense and I’ll-show-you. Click. We unfriend as if we are so just and right and the other is not. 

Egad.

I wouldn’t be authentic if I failed to acknowledge my own missteps. I have spoken when I should have stayed silent. I have argued when I should have instead adopted a position of humility and asked more questions. I have thought I was respectful when the person on the receiving end of me didn’t take it that way. Let me be clear; that onus is on me. I’ve been wrong. I will be wrong again. 

So knowing the personally perilous minefield social media can abruptly turn into, what are some wise guidelines? What would be good to practice so that the negatives of social media are minimized? Sometimes it’s like we’re all back in junior high — just with bigger words and real jobs — but it’s junior high in that we can’t see the big picture, we’re too focused on self and our own opinion, sometimes just seeking adult attention, and we’re not consistently kind to one another. How could we do better?

Hence, a few thoughts…

• Our worth will never be determined via loves, likes, agreement nor comparison to other people.
• Not every part of our private life needs to be public.
• You don’t have to post it to prove it.
• What we think of another’s post or opinion isn’t always necessary to say. Discernment is necessary. 
• Everything you say isn’t always right.
• If there’s a gap of understanding between us and another, fill the gap with trust and adopt the humble posture of asking more than assuming.
• Emotional rants are wiser shared with a trusted, encouraging friend. 
• Prioritize real-life connections. While our “friends” and “followers” may indeed be friends, social media is a controlled connection; people only see what we want them to. There is way more to life than this.

Obviously, there are more wise guidelines to our love/hate relationship. That’s the thing. It’s not all bad; there’s some good stuff on there. But it’s clearly not all good either.

Respectfully…

AR

Ever since 2016, there’s been a quote circulating on social media attributed to C.S. Lewis in his satirical novel, The Screwtape Letters. Screwtape is a fictional senior demon, and he is talking to his nephew, Wormwood, a junior demon. The letters are Screwtape’s attempt to advise Wormwood on how to corrupt a “patient” — or a human soul — and turn him away from God. 

The quote in question goes like this:

“My dear Wormwood, 

Be sure that the patient remains completely fixated on politics. Arguments, political gossip, and obsessing on the faults of people they have never met serves as an excellent distraction from advancing in personal virtue, character, and the things the patient can control. Make sure to keep the patient in a constant state of angst, frustration, and general disdain towards the rest of the human race in order to avoid any kind of charity or inner peace from further developing. Ensure the patient continues to believe that the problem is “out there” in the “broken system” rather than recognizing there is a problem with himself.”

Allow us to be clear. The quote is wrongly attributed; it was never written by C.S. Lewis and is not included in the book. However, the point of the post is sadly, absolutely believable: politics serves the demon’s purpose to corrupt a human soul.

So dare we humbly ask today: how?

With summarizing assistance from AI, how politics helps serve the demon’s purpose in corrupting the human soul is soberly comprehendible…

Encouraging extremes: The demons’ goal is to push humans toward either blind, unquestioning loyalty to a political figure or extreme cynicism and disillusionment with the entire system. Screwtape notes that “all extremes, except extreme devotion to the Enemy [God], are to be encouraged.”

Mistaking the “cause” for faith: Screwtape advises Wormwood to make the patient treat their politics as part of their religion, then the most important part, and finally, to make religion merely a tool to serve their political “cause.” This inverts the proper order, turning a person’s faith into a means to a worldly end, and is a major victory for the demonic forces.

Fostering hatred and pride: When humans get caught up in political infighting, the emotional frenzy obscures rational thought and compassion. The demons encourage a sense of smug, self-righteous pride in a person’s own political correctness and a hatred for the opposing faction. This provides a justification to abandon charity and demonize political opponents.

Using distraction to hinder spiritual growth: By keeping a person obsessed with political gossip, outrage, and the faults of others, the demons distract the patient from their own spiritual and moral growth. An endless focus on problems “out there” prevents them from recognizing internal moral issues.

Debasing language and promoting ignorance: The demons corrupt language and reason so that a person judges ideas not on their truthfulness but on whether they align with their political tribe’s approved jargon, such as “progressive” or “conservative.” In a separate essay, Lewis also wrote that a demonic version of democracy, where everyone insists “I’m as good as you,” can lead to a populace that is “cocksure” in its ignorance and quick to attack.

Perverting the desire for heaven: Screwtape tells Wormwood to manipulate a human’s desire for a better world by convincing them that a political project can create “Heaven on Earth.” This shifts their hope away from God and places it in a human, earthly candidate or ideology. 

This reflection makes me think…

The Screwtape Letters is a work of fiction.

I wish what we’re witnessing today was also a fictional work.

Respectfully…

AR

Wow… what a story…

We often hear encouraging, inspiring stories of faith. People speak of what God has done in their life… how He’s been at work… some absolute amazing, jaw dropping stories. 

The testimonies come from near and far… from those we know and those we don’t. They come from people in every demographic. God does not discriminate.

We hear these stories, too, from so many athletes and celebrities, thanking God routinely, publicly… 

So many speak of their faith and what God has done.

This past weekend, I was struck by something profoundly new. I was encouraged and inspired not by someone sharing what God has done. Rather, by someone sharing what God is currently doing.

A friend shared her story as to how she sees God at work in her life. It’s not because she is a cancer survivor. She has cancer now. 

She calmly articulated how only two short years ago, she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer in her bones and her blood. Not only is the cancer aggressive, it’s also incurable. Her life expectancy is notably shorter. She’ll stay with her current treatment plan until it’s deemed ineffective and perhaps they can find another approach.

Soon after being diagnosed, she lost all ability to walk.

With treatment, therapy and prayer, she has begun to walk again.

Not only does my friend share calmly, she shares hopefully. Peacefully. And joyfully. To call her sharing encouraging and inspiring is an obvious understatement. She isn’t sharing some past story of healing and success; healing may never come. She is sharing the inner strength she has now — amidst the disease. That is the work that God is doing. To have peace, to not be rattled, and to exercise trust in the middle of circumstances that are potentially dire and indeed hard.

After my friend shared publicly via video, she sat on a stool on platform with a mic in her hand. The keys and acoustic guitar played lightly in the background. And then she sang this…

After a break in her song, just time to acknowledge God and give him thanks, my friend had one more thing to sing…

What a story… that peace, hope and joy in the midst of the hard… what a miracle now.

Sweetly…

AR

So let’s ask. Is the systematic killing of Christians in Nigeria on your radar?

Allow us to provide some critical context…

• First, in regard to Nigeria, with more than 230 million people, not only is it the most populous country in Africa but also the world’s 6th most populous country.
• While there is no official state religion, the country is roughly half Christian and half Muslim. It is estimated, therefore, that there are somewhere near 109 million Christians in the country.
• While difficult to discern an accurate count due to the rurality of the attacks, tens of thousands of Christians have been killed in Nigeria since 2000, with many estimates over 100,000 people. The International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law reports that at least 52,250 Christians have been killed in Nigeria over the past 14 years.
• The violence is not equal across the entire West African nation. Most of the violence takes place in the northern parts of Nigeria, which is home to more of the Muslim community. The larger Christian population lives more in the southern region of the country. The violence has begun to extend into some more southern, Christian-majority states.
• This is primarily a religious conflict, although it isn’t only religious. Christians are being targeted. They are being killed because of what they believe and Who they believe in.
• Nigerian government representatives have repeatedly denied that Christians are being singled out; however, the involved, self-proclaimed Islamic militant groups say otherwise. One of those primary groups, Boko Haram, has explicitly and repeatedly called for the elimination of Christianity in the country, ordering Christians to convert to Islam or be killed.
• Many secular journalists have portrayed the killings as merely “clashes” between farmers and herders, downplaying the religious nature of the conflict. Such results from the numerous farming communities that have been attacked In the Middle Belt of Nigeria. Note that the farmers are predominantly Christian, and they’ve been attacked by primarily Muslim herders, most who’ve become radicalized Fulani militants.
• Kidnapping has also become a serious problem, with more than 20,000 people abducted between 2019 and 2023. Christians have become specifically vulnerable targets.
• Just this past week, on the night of October 14th, 15 people were reported to be massacred by those Fulani terrorists. 

Back to Maher for a moment…

“This is so much more of a genocide attempt than what is going on in Gaza; they are literally attempting to wipe out the Christian population of an entire country. Where are the kids protesting this?”

A few more thoughts…

First, what’s happening is horrible. 

Next, we struggle with the word “genocide.” It’s very emotive. Also, according to international law, a situation has to meet very specific requirements to qualify as such, and that then triggers a responsibility for governments to take determined action against the violence. Such makes sense why a country may deny key elements of the conflict. 

And finally, it leaves us with some very basic questions — specifically, one, what we most protest and why — and two, what keeps us from being aware.

Thinking out loud today…

AR

Let’s intensify it a bit…

But those have never been real. Let’s intensify it a bit more…

Democrats vs. Republicans

Dare we say briefly more this day? 

The pitting of the latter two rivals is often ugly and intense. My strong sense is that each is more successful when they focus on what they have in common, coming together to solve the problems that plague the country most. I believe, too, they serve the public poorly when they focus most on what’s wrong with the other. They are less efficient, less integrous, and make fewer people want to be like them.

“Can’t we all just get along?”

Unfortunately and understandably, many don’t believe such is possible ever again.

And while I may be an optimist, here’s where I differ. Why?

733 days. 1,195 originally murdered. 251 hostages. Reports estimate that in the conflict, over 92,000 people have since died.

Let’s be clear: Israel and Hamas don’t believe the same thing. They aren’t just rivals; they are enemies. An enemy is marked by his hate. And yet this week, two groups of people who hate each other agreed that they needed to find a better path. Their previously chosen paths were destructive and serving their constituents poorly.

Let us thus state the current situation bluntly but clearly…

If Israel and Hamas can find a way toward peace — two groups of people who often kill because of disagreement — Democrats and Republicans can find a way, as well. These government shutdowns often seem silly — hurting people who don’t deserve it — and sadly, they most resemble exercises in mutual hypocrisy with the parties changing words and roles, contradicting what they said before pending who’s in power now. The parties would serve the public better if they would each be wiser. Sharpen each other. And quit blaming the other all the time.

Yes, we need peace here, too.

Respectfully…

AR

It was the best…

Full of fun. Full of festivity. Full of friends, family, food and all sorts of just the right touches and treats in the creating of meaningful moments. 

It was my son’s 24th birthday — and a grand one at that.

24 years ago, we found out halfway through our pregnancy that the babe had a specific congenital heart defect that when present in utero, 50% of the time, it indicates the child has Down syndrome. 

A couple moments stood out to me from those initial, immediate, and sometimes shocking conversations. One was when the doctor asked us if we’d like to proceed with more testing. In response to me earnestly asking why, he said so that we can be prepared to have a baby with a disability. It struct me as odd at the time — not wrong nor any judgment, of course. But I can remember responding matter of factly back with exactly what I was thinking. “You said we have a 50% chance of having a kid with Down syndrome. I think God’s telling us we need to be prepared.”

Next was when the two doctors in the room looked to each other, not making any eye contact with us as of yet, when one soberly said, “Should we have the conversation with them now?” Then they turn to us, respectfully but bluntly asking if we would be interested in aborting our child. Again, no judgment; it just made no sense to us with a kid we had long started to love.

Somewhere amidst all this unanticipated development years ago I became newly aware of an oft used — and I believe misused — colloquialism. It was just something that got me thinking in a way I previously had not; that’s good for us at times. I speak of this whole idea of “quality of life,” the standard we perceive of health, comfort and happiness experienced by another.

For full comprehension purposes, the term “quality of life” originated in the 1920’s but gained prominence in the 60’s and 70’s, particularly in the U.S. after World War II. It became a common metric in medical and public health research, driven by growing awareness and the need to evaluate health outcomes by more than just the physical. It makes sense.

But my perception of misuse comes less from the metric’s value in public health research than in our sense of assessment capability. I feel like we think we are far more capable of discerning another’s quality of life than we actually are.

Let me be respectfully clear. I am not referencing a person whose life is only viable via artificial means. I also am sensitive to those whose perceived quality of life was at one so-called level and then drastically changes, perceived as incredibly negatively so. I can only imagine the effort and perseverance such takes. God be with persons in said circumstances.

My discomfort instead comes from when we look at another whose life is different than our own or different than what we believe is good and then we assess that their life is somehow lesser — “lesser” meaning less good or not so great or not as important or worthwhile as others. That’s why those doctors asked me immediately after diagnosis if we wished to abort; they perceived my son’s life as lesser.

All due respect to those doctors; many in the medical community became deeply valuable, precious and trusted resources during that time. But to see my son now — what they clearly couldn’t see then — and think his quality of life is somehow lesser is to not know my son. He works, cooks, cleans and brightens the days of many. He takes care of dogs, volunteers in the community, and passionately yells at the TV on college football Saturdays. He is humble, kind, faithful and loves people — many days better and more than me. In other words, at 24, he is thriving.

Thanks, no less, to the many who reached out to extend warm wishes to him on his birthday. He was so grateful!

It was a most wonderful — and always meaningful — day.

Respectfully…

AR

It is no secret that the Intramuralist has long appreciated the insight and influence of Bari Weiss, the articulate, incredibly witty, always fair, more-liberal-than-conservative, Jewish, lesbian journalist who left the New York Times because she wasn’t left enough for them. Bari is respectful and thought-provoking. She founded the truth-based Free Press; her platform just increased immensely. Excuse us this day, as we hear Bari’s announcement this week. It’s a little longer for us than usual, but I believe it to be noteworthy. Also, all emphasis is mine. From Bari…

____________

We’ve sent more than 4,000 emails since we started The Free Press five years ago. This one is different. We’re a news organization, so I’ll get right to it: This morning, The Free Press is joining Paramount. This move is a testament to many things: The Free Press team; the vision of Paramount’s new leaders; the luck of starting an independent media company at the right moment; and the courage of my colleagues to leave behind old worlds to build a new one. But, above all, it’s a testament to you, our subscribers.

From day one, the promise—and the business proposition—of this publication was simple: We would marry the quality of the old world to the freedom of the new. We would seek the truth and tell it plainly. And we would treat readers like adults capable of making their own choices. So many people told us this was no longer possible. That the premise of a media company built on trust rather than partisanship was, at best, a relic from the past—and, at worst, a fantasy that never was. That the internet killed journalism. That there simply weren’t enough Americans out there in search of media driven by honesty, independence, and integrity. You proved them wrong. You demonstrated that there’s a market for honest journalism. And you’ve given us a mandate to pursue that mission from an even bigger platform…

The Free Press uncovered an America hiding in plain sight. People who want to be surprised. People who want to learn. People who are open to changing their minds in the face of new facts. People who believe that curiosity is a virtue and who crave common sense in a world that feels upside down. People who resist the warmth of political tribalism even as they seek community with one another. People who want logic and wit, not conspiracy theories and demoralization.

Most of all, Free Pressers are people who want to face the truth. Because we understand that knowing it is the only way to improve lives—our own and those of our fellow citizens. Being almost entirely a subscription business has kept us honest. We publish stories, we get subscribers. We build trust, we get subscribers. Story by story, hire by hire, that’s what we did.

I won’t list the news this team has broken, the brilliant pieces by our writers that made sense of a roiling and confused political moment, the conversations we’ve cracked open, or the merry band of brilliant misfits who have done it all…

If you have been here from the start, you might have questions. Wasn’t The Free Press started precisely because the old media institutions had failed? Isn’t the whole premise of this publication that we need to build anew? Why flee The New York Times only to head back into another legacy institution?

In 2020, when I quit The New York Times, I left a job that, on paper, was exactly the one I had always dreamed of having. But it wasn’t The New York Times anymore. It was, by then, a fancy logo and a motto that many had abandoned in exchange for devotion to a set of narrow, partisan ideas.

I was raised to be a believer in the institutions that built America and that made sense of it—the universities, book publishers, movie studios, and newspaper companies that forged public opinion for the entirety of my grandparents’ and parents’ lives. But what I found in 2020 is that the most important public conversations were happening outside of those places. I wanted to be a part of that more than I wanted to cling to the prestige.

Five years later, so much has changed. As the gatekeepers of the mainstream have failed one after another, an explosion took place across the media landscape. Incredible new voices came to the fore. Personalities and influencers have overtaken hundred-year-old journalism brands in only a few years. It’s an exciting, fascinating moment. It is also a deeply uncertain one.

If the illiberalism of our institutions has been the story of the last decade, we now face a different form of illiberalism emanating from our fringes. On the one hand, an America-loathing far left. On the other, a history-erasing far right. These extremes do not represent the majority of the country, but they have increasing power in our politics, our culture, and our media ecosystem.

Overlooked by all these so-called interlocutors are the enormous numbers of smart, politically mixed, pragmatic Americans. The people who believe, unapologetically, in the American project. This is the actual mainstream. These people are the overwhelming majority of the country. And they are being ill-served.

As proud as we are of the 1.5 million subscribers who have joined under the banner of The Free Press—and we are astonished at that number—this is a country with 340 million people. We want our work to reach more of them, as quickly as possible. This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity allows us to do that. It gives The Free Press a chance to help reshape a storied media organization—to help guide CBS News into a future that honors those great values that underpin The Free Press and the best of American journalism. And in doing so, to bring our mission to millions of people.

The values that we’ve hammered out here over the years—journalism based in curiosity and honesty, a culture of healthy disagreement, our shared belief in America’s promise—now have the opportunity to go very, very big…

What does this mean for CBS News? It means a redoubled commitment to great journalism. It means building on a storied legacy—and bringing that historic newsroom into 2025 and beyond. Most of all, it means working tirelessly to make sure CBS News is the most trusted news organization in the world.

We would not be doing this if we did not believe in David Ellison, and the entire leadership team who took over Paramount this summer. They are doubling down because they believe in news. Because they have courage. Because they love this country. And because they understand, as we do, that America cannot thrive without common facts, common truths, and a common reality.

If you’ve been on this journey with us at The Free Press since the office was our kitchen table, thank you. If you’re a CBS News reader or viewer hearing our name for the first time: I am eager to earn your trust.

With immense gratitude,

Bari

____________

Blessings, Bari. The Intramuralist respects you deeply. We’re with you on this and can’t wait to tune in.

Respectfully…

AR