WEDNESDAY: What the heck did the president say?

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2026

The bombing of San Diego: Most Americans will remember the time when we were honored, admittedly by one only person, as “the best close reader in the media today.”   

The statement was attributed to Dan Kennedy, as quoted by Steve Twomey in a somewhat peculiar profile of this very site in the February 2005 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. If memory serves, we may have been the Review's cover boy in that issue, though that could be wrong. 

At any rate, the lofty accolade leaped off the page.  The passage in question went like this:

The Howler’s Quiet Moment  

[...]

“I appreciate what he does,” wrote “Jim” during a discussion of blogging on The Washington Monthly’s Web site in September, “but seriously, if I read him for more than a few days in a row, I want to scream, ‘We. got. it. the first 8,000 times you wrote it, our press is deeply dysfunctional. Move on. PLEASE.’”

But Dan Kennedy, the media critic of The Boston Phoenix, says Somerby is “the best close reader in the media today,” the most adept at parsing a story for faulty logic, sloppy research, omissions, writing tricks, and the degree to which its author swallowed somebody’s spin. Kennedy, a late-comer to the Howler, says that when he finally read it regularly, “the scales were lifted from my eyes: ‘Good Lord, this guy is amazing.’”    

Today, that's Professor Kennedy, of Northeastern University, who we've often described as the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being ever seen in print. 

In that slightly peculiar part of his profile, Twomey, a very nice guy, was displaying a slightly odd form of critical balance—pulling a complaint from a guy named "Jim" in comments, balancing it with words of praise from a professional press observer. 

By the way:

Why did we repeat ourselves so much, largely concerning press coverage of the 2000 campaign? We said the things we constantly said because we couldn't get anyone else to say them, even though everyone knew they were true, a point we repeatedly explained at the time. 

What happened in the press corps during Campaign 2000 was staying in the press corps! As everyone in the press corps knew, that was hard guild law at the time.

At any rate, there we were, described as "the best close reader." Today, close readers of all stripes face a new interpretive challenge:

What did the sitting president say about the possible bombing of San Diego and Los Angeles? We thought the performance on MS NOW last night was stunningly bad—was anthrpologically sobering.

For us, it started at 3 p.m. Eastern, ran on through the night. Maybe tomorrow, maybe later, we'll say how we think it went.


VALUES: "They could see into the creature's soul...

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2026

...and soothe the wounds they found there:" The gruesome news from Cornell has had us thinking about one of our favorite movies.    

Rather, it's had us thinking about one part of that high profile film. The film in question is The Horse Whisperer. Here's the start of the overview from the leading authority: 

The Horse Whisperer 

The Horse Whisperer is a 1998 American neo-western drama film directed by and starring Robert Redford, based on the 1995 novel The Horse Whisperer by Nicholas Evans. Redford plays the title role, a talented trainer with a remarkable gift for understanding horses, who is hired to help an injured teenager (played by Scarlett Johansson) and her horse back to health following a tragic accident.   

The film was produced by Touchstone Pictures and released on May 15, 1998 by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution. It received generally positive reviews from critics and grossed nearly $187 million worldwide.  

Johansson was 13 when the firm was made. Continuing directly from above, here's the start of the plot:

Plot

In Lake Luzerne, New York, teenagers Grace MacLean and her best friend Judith go out early one winter's morning to ride their horses, Pilgrim and Gulliver. As they ride up an icy slope, Gulliver slips and hits Pilgrim. Both horses fall, dragging the girls onto a road, where they are hit by a tractor-trailer. Judith and Gulliver are killed, while Grace and Pilgrim are severely injured.

Grace, left with a partially amputated right leg, is bitter and withdrawn after the accident. Meanwhile, Pilgrim is traumatized and uncontrollable to the extent that it is suggested he be put down. Grace's mother Annie, a strong-minded, workaholic magazine editor, refuses to allow it, sensing that Grace's recovery is linked with Pilgrim's.

Desperate for a way to heal Grace and Pilgrim, Annie tracks down a "horse whisperer," Tom Booker, in the remote Montana mountains...

And so on from there.

That's how the authority sees it. We refer to the part of the film where the Redford character saves the emotional life of the girl, rather than the part of the film in which he falls in love with her mother. 

Focusing on that part of the film, we're not sure we've ever seen a film which was more deeply humane. We've thought of the Redford character's concern for the girl as we've followed the disgraceful news from the Ivy League this past week.  

Intriguing point: In its broad outlines, The Horse Whisperer is a virtual remake of Redford's first film as a director, Ordinary People (1980). 

In that earlier film, a tortured teenager (Timothy Hutton) is struggling with the death of his older brother in a terrible boating accident. In The Horse Whisperer, Grace—she seems to be as young as 13—is struggling with the death of her best friend, and with terrible injuries to herself and to her horse

In the more literal earlier film, the Hutton character is saved by the intercession of a caring psychiatrist. In The Horse Whisperer, the tortured teenage girl is fortunate enough to encounter the Redford character "in the remote Montana mountains," which turns out to be a very good place to be.

Early on, we see Grace's mother searching for someone who might be able to save the traumatized horse. She stumbles upon this bit of text describing an ancient separation between two branches of creation:

A million years before man, they grazed the vast and empty plains, living by voices only they could hear. They first came to know man as the hunted knows the hunter, for long before he used horses for his labors, he killed them for meat.

The alliance with man would forever be fragile, for the fear he'd struck into their hearts was too deep to be dislodged. 

Since that Neolithic moment when a horse was first haltered, there were those among men who understood this. They could see into the creature's soul and soothe the wounds they found there. For secrets uttered softly into troubled ears, these men were known as "the whisperers."

Early in the film, the girl's mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) comes upon that text in a book, along with a profile of Booker. To see that evocative moment from the film, you can click right here.  

The whisperers were able to see into a troubled creature's soul. When the mother and girl arrive in Montana, hoping that the Redford character would be able to cure the traumatized horse, the Redford character was able to see that it was really the suffering child who was most in need of help. 

He's so humane that he sets out to provide that help, even though she was the girl. 

Traumatized by her friend's death and by the injuries to herself and to her horse, the tormented child in this second film (Grace) is disappearing inside herself. Eventually, she confesses to the Redford character (Booker) that she feels responsible for her friend's death in the fatal accident, in which her horse reared up against an incoming truck.

Afte her confession, the Redford character tells her a story about a local Montana kid who was paralyzed in a terrible swimming accident, then seemed to disappear inside himself. 

"I know where he goes," the girl says. Along the way, the Redford character is decent enough and humane enough to tell her this:  

BOOKER: I won't tell you it'll stop feeling this bad. But I will tell you, you didn't do anything wrong. The same thing would have happened to me—or to Frank, or to Joey. And it doesn't make any sense to try to figure out why these things happen. 

[...] 

BOOKER: It's like the boy I knew just went away somewhere.

GRACE: I know where he goes.

BOOKER: I know you do. Don't you disappear. You do whatever you have to do to hold on.

I'll tell you one more thing. When Pilgrim reared up to face that truck, you know what I think? I think that damn horse loved you so much, he was trying to protect you. That's what I think.   

In our view, you have to go a good long way to find a more humane presentation than that.

We admired Redford for making Ordinary People—for caring about the suffering of a suffering teenage boy, despite the fact that he was a giant big Hollywood star. We triply admired him for making a version of the same film, in which a deeply humane character—a whisperer, in this case to humans—was even willing and able to look into the soul of "the girl."  

We've thought of that deeply humane character as we've followed the inexcusable news from Cornell. Also, we've thought about the terrible people running those elite universities, and we've thought about the squalor of the garbage can that gets rolled out every night on the Fox News Channel.   

From there, it's on to the broadcasting Hall of Fame! Our rumination continues tomorrow.

Tomorrow: It's hard to find the words


TUESDAY: He's crafted our most intelligent cable news show!

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2026

He may be wrong about this: We're grateful to Joe Scarborough for the cable news show he has built.   

It seems to us that Morning Joe features the most intelligent discussions found anywhere in daily cable news programming. That said, we think he may be somewhat incorrect-adjacent on this:

Scarborough Fumes That the Media Has a Pro-Trump ‘Bias’ Because Reporters are ‘Numbed To It All’  

Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough accused the mainstream media of effectively developing a bias in President Donald Trump’s favor Tuesday, arguing reporters have become so accustomed to his rhetoric that comments that would engulf another president in controversy now barely register.

The host pointed to Trump’s remarks at a rally in Nebraska on Monday, where the president suggested Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego while defending the economic costs of the ongoing conflict as a “small price to pay.”

Scarborough said he checked the websites of several major newspapers Tuesday morning, naming The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Financial Times, and found only The New York Times had prominently covered the comments. 

[...]  

Scarborough added: “I mean, you could take his quotes from last night, you can take his quotes from other speeches, you could run together a supercut of all of those clips and that’s the same questions about his mental acuity that were asked about Joe Biden’s mental acuity. But that’s not happening and that won’t happen.”   

We've often criticized the New York Times for failing to report (for disappearing) the steady stream of crazy remarks posted by the sitting president. That said, we thought the Scarborough gang were paraphrasing a bit freely today about the president's comment last night about San Diego and Los Angeles.

(The paraphrase offered in the passage we've posted strikes us as almost surely inaccurate.)

That said, also this:

Regarding the sitting president's "mental acuity" (and possible issues of "mental illness"), Joe and Mika and their standard roster of high-end guests have joined everyone else in the guild in refusing to discuss what they must surely think they know about the sitting president.  

By the way, when was President Biden's "mental acuity" widely questioned in the mainstream Blue American press, including on Morning Joe? 

That earlier president's "mental acuity" was relentlessly flogged on the Fox News Channel, sometimes in ways which were transparently bogus, quite often in ways which were not. We don't recall seeing that topic discussed on Morning Joe or elsewhere in Blue America's press until very late in the game, long after that president's debate meltdown made the (unfortunate) topic quite hard to avoid.

Were Scarborough and the rest of the group perhaps a bit over their skis today? It seemed to us that they might possibly maybe were!


VALUES: "My kind, smart, big-hearted daughter," she said!

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2026

Then too, there's President Trump: What was the sitting president talking about? If anything, what did he actually mean by what he said?

It starts with the way you might decide to transcribe his remarks. 

In this report at Mediaite, we'd say the transcription is somewhat inaccurate, in that a word is missing. As best we can tell from the (slightly garbled) videotape, the president came out with this:  

PRESIDENT TRUMP (10/5/26): I want to see a tremendous victory [in the midterms]. You want to see a tremendous victory. Because it verifies all the things we did [with his tax cuts and the like].

And again, remember--with the war, it's just artificial. It's a little bit high. It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe.

They could take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles, let them take out San Diego. That's-- 

This is a very small price to pay, and it's going to be over very soon. It's essentially almost over with.

And they might keep going a little long, you know? They always say they have a big threshold for pian.  They need it, let me tell you. They need it.  But it's going to end very soon, and it will end one way or the other. And your gas, and your gasoline, and all of the things--

At that point, he switched to standard remarks about the conquest of Venezuela. For video from CBS San Diego, you can just click here.

In that passage, the president seemed to be threatening a major military assault on Iran after the midterm elections. (A third aircraft carrier is currently on its way to that region.) But attention has focused on what he said about San Diego and Los Angeles. 

What was the president saying or trying to say? In our view, the New York Times got it right when it offered this assessment:

It was not immediately clear what Mr. Trump meant.

We agree with that. Elsewhere, varying paraphrase has flourished.

We're sorry, Blues, but no. We don't think the sitting president, who's routinely quite inarticulate,  was actually saying this, as the BBC rather wildly reported:

Speaking about higher gas prices as a result of the US-Israel war with Iran, Trump said Tehran "taking out" Los Angeles or San Diego would be a "small price to pay for keeping the world safe."  

We're sorry, but in our view, the BBC was showing that we Blues can sometimes go overboard too.

In our view, the ugly conduct is easier to spot in this second event. Others will surely say that the commander was jut being funny.   

Trump uses anti-transgender slur to attack South Carolina Senate nominee

President Donald Trump on Monday used an anti-transgender slur to attack Democratic South Carolina Senate nominee Dr. Annie Andrews, as he tries to push his handpicked GOP candidate, Sen. Darline Graham, over the finish line in the midterm election.

“Annie ‘Trannie’ Andrews is running against our wonderful Darline Graham for the Senate in South Carolina,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. He used a version of the slur three times in the post.

Andrews did not reference Trump’s comments in a statement responding to his post, instead saying, “I’m in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina.”

So the commander said.

Values! In yesterday's brief report, we started the week with the opening sentence of Jennifer Weiner's guest essay for the New York Times. Given the gruesome reporting from Cornell, did anything more need to be said?

I Thought Things Had Gotten Better. The Cornell Case Shows How Bad They Really Are.

Four weeks ago, I dropped off my younger daughter to start her freshman year at college... 

Given the reporting from Cornell, a reader would surely know where this essay was going. Later in her excellent piece, Weiner described her younger daughter in the following way:

My kind, smart, big-hearted daughter...

Her daughter is kind, plus she's smart and big-hearted.

We've known so many girls and young women who were exactly like that! They might also be described, more simply, as "good, decent, very good people."

Tomorrow, let's try to return to this topic, and to the challenge Cornell may pose to the way we Blue Americans sometimes pursue our professed values.

Update: At CNN, Daniel Dale largely agrees with our view:   

CNN Fact Checker Daniel Dale Defends Trump Over ‘Let ‘Em Take Out’ Los Angeles, San Diego Clip


VALUES: She dropped her daughter off for college!

MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2026

The story starts right there: We've chosen VALUES as our touchstone this week. It could simply have been CORNELL

We admired Jessica Weiner's guest essay in yesterday's New York Times. Headline included, her essay started like this, online headline included:

I Thought Things Had Gotten Better. The Cornell Case Shows How Bad They Really Are.

Four weeks ago, I dropped off my younger daughter to start her freshman year at college...

And so on from there. Given the reporting from Cornell, it isn't clear that Weiner had to say anything more than that.

Meanwhile, yes! Leaving any legal decisions to the appropriate legal processes, it seems to us that everything about this latest case does indeed seem to show "how bad [things] really are" in this profoundly important area of deep human concern.

Our analysts continue to filter back onto our sprawling campus, returning from their recent journeys to points unknown. Starting tomorrow, we'll focus on these Cornell events and the world from which they emerge.

When it comes to tragedies of this type, we possess a lifetime of thoughts.