Original Sin: The Media's Decline, Its Self-Delusion, and Their Disastrous Choice To Abandon Truth

The way the media is covering Jake Tapper's new book "Original Sin" is just another piece of evidence that they've learned absolutely nothing. And honestly? That's the most devastating part.

So Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's book "Original Sin" has landed like a grenade in media circles, exploding across every right-wing talk show (including mine, admittedly). But last night, as I sat pondering the book's apparent revelations about Biden's cognitive decline and the White House's frantic cover-up attempts, I felt something unexpected: sadness.

Not the kind of sadness you feel when your favorite team loses, but the deep, gut-wrenching sadness that comes from watching an institution you once respected continue its spectacular free-fall into irrelevance.

The Guardians Who Abandoned Their Post

Remember when we used to call the media "the Fourth Estate"? When we actually believed their duty was to inform the public and hold our institutions accountable regardless of political affiliation? (Quaint concept, I know.) That media understood something fundamental: power, in any form, has the capacity to corrupt, whether through actual corruption, moral failing, cover-ups, or abuse.

But somewhere along the way, the media decided that their job wasn't to inform the public—it was to protect the public from information they deemed too dangerous for our delicate little minds. They appointed themselves not just the messengers but the message-makers, the arbiters of what constitutes "truth" worthy of coverage.

In their minds, they weren't abandoning their responsibility; they were evolving it. "Trust us," they seemed to say, "we know what's best for democracy."

---

Quick note! If you would like to support my work and gain access to the full archives, newsletters, and desk notes, hit the button below for 30% off your annual subscription to unlock the full It’s Meseidy experiance.

---

The Book That Proves Nothing Has Changed

Tapper and Thompson's book, revealing how Biden's inner circle frantically worked to conceal his deteriorating cognitive state, should be the ultimate "told you so" moment for conservatives. But it's actually more significant as proof that the media has learned precisely nothing from their previous failures.

Let's examine Tapper's remarkable pivot. He appeared on CNN expressing "humility" for his failure to "push harder" on Biden's decline. This newfound humility would be touching if it wasn't for the uncomfortable fact that Tapper, like much of the mainstream media, had two choices during the Biden presidency:

1. Dig deeper on Biden's obvious cognitive issues that were apparent to anyone with functioning eyeballs

2. Believe the White House's increasingly absurd denials because the alternative might inadvertently help Trump

They chose option two. Every. Single. Time.

Why? Because in their minds, Trump was such an existential threat that journalistic integrity became a luxury they couldn't afford. Democracy was "at stake," after all—a phrase that apparently justifies abandoning the very principles that make democracy function.

The Growing List of Media Cover-Ups

The current bout of media hand-wringing over Biden's decline follows a disturbing pattern. This isn't their first rodeo when it comes to suppressing or dismissing stories that might have aided the "wrong side." Consider:

• Russia Gate/Crossfire Hurricane: Despite Special Counsel John Durham concluding the FBI investigation into Trump-Russia collusion was launched without sufficient evidence, media outlets continued pushing these narratives for years. Durham's report stated the FBI used "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" and applied different standards to Trump than to Clinton's campaign.

• Hunter Biden's Laptop: When the New York Post broke this story in October 2020, major social media platforms restricted its sharing, and mainstream outlets largely ignored it. We now know the FBI had possessed the laptop since December 2019 and knew it was authentic, yet warned social media companies to be on alert for "Russian disinformation." As detailed in congressional investigations, the FBI's actions allowed widespread censorship of a truthful news story during a presidential election.

• COVID Narratives: Remember when questioning the lab leak theory was "misinformation"? Or when discussing natural immunity was "dangerous"? How quickly those narratives shifted once it became politically safe to do so.

• Inflation and Border Crisis: Both downplayed consistently during critical periods to shield the administration from criticism, only to be grudgingly acknowledged when the problems became too large to ignore.

Each of these instances follows the same playbook: suppress, dismiss, discredit—then, when the truth eventually emerges, offer a quiet correction buried on page D17, or better yet, a tortured explanation of why they were actually right all along, just in a more nuanced way than you could possibly understand.

The Irony of Alex Thompson's Awakening

Perhaps the most revealing moment from this media mea culpa tour came during Alex Thompson's White House Correspondents' Association Dinner speech after winning the Aldo Beckman Award for his reporting on Biden's decline.

Thompson said, "President Biden's decline and its cover-up by the people around him is a reminder that every White House, regardless of party, is capable of deception."

Let’s take a moment to understand what is happening here. A room full of journalists, whose entire professional existence is supposedly dedicated to holding power accountable, needed to be "reminded" that all administrations can lie regardless of party affiliation. This isn't just embarrassing; it’s a reminder that the media is a failure.

The Devastating Consequences

The tragedy here isn't just about Biden or politics—it's about trust. Journalistic power was not actually in their platforms, access, or Ivy League degrees but in their credibility. They traded that credibility for what they perceived as the moral high ground, the duty to protect, not inform. Ultimately, they sold their credibility and were left with no moral high ground to stand on.

The American people aren't stupid. They can see the double standards, the selective outrage, the narrative-crafting. Each time the media picks sides instead of pursuing truth, they chip away at their own foundation until there's nothing left to stand on.

And that's why I'm sad. Because despite the fall of Biden, despite the discrediting of the Russian collusion narrative, despite the verification of Hunter Biden's laptop, despite all evidence that their approach has failed spectacularly—they're still doing it. They're still clinging to the belief that they know best, that their duty isn't to inform but to guide, not to question but to shape.

The Self-Inflicted Wounds of Legacy Media

The latest comedy hour in this media tragedy is watching legacy outlets cry foul about the Trump administration's treatment of the press. They're claiming to be "under attack," "silenced," and "threatened" because—gasp—they might lose their front-row seats in briefing rooms or exclusive access to administration officials.

Let's get something straight: This isn't an "attack on the free press." It's the logical consequence of a decade of self-sabotage.

When you've spent years pushing narratives instead of news, when you've proven yourself willing to suppress stories that don't fit your preferred political framework, when you've abandoned objectivity in favor of activism—why exactly should any administration, regardless of party, treat you as a neutral arbiter of truth?

The legacy media's complaints about their treatment by the new administration sound like a restaurant with abysmal Yelp reviews complaining that people no longer make reservations. You served terrible food for years—don't act shocked when diners choose to eat elsewhere.

And "elsewhere" is exactly where the American people have gone. While CNN and legacy networks hemorrhage viewers, independent journalists and podcasters have exploded in popularity. Joe Rogan reaches more people in a day than most cable news shows reach in a week. Substack newsletters (like this one!) offer deeper analysis than the regurgitated talking points you'll find on morning shows.

This isn't just changing audience preferences; it's a fundamental shift in where Americans place their trust. People aren't stupid; they see through the charade. They can tell the difference between journalism and narrative manipulation.

So when the White House Press Corps complains about changes to briefing room protocols or access limitations, my response is simple: Why would any administration prioritize communicating through channels that have proven themselves untrustworthy and increasingly irrelevant?

The White House's job isn't to preserve the gatekeeping elitism of the Washington press corps—it's to communicate with the American people. Right now, legacy media is one of the least effective ways to do that.

---

Related

---

The New Fourth Estate: With Great Power...

Perhaps independent media and the podcast ecosystem are becoming the new Fourth Estate. But if that's the case, we need to learn from legacy media's mistakes, not repeat them.

The privilege of audience trust needs to be cared for and respected. Our duty isn't to support any political faction or manipulate facts to suit our preferences. Our obligation is simple but demanding: be honest stewards of your trust.

That means:

• Acknowledging our own biases transparently

• Following facts regardless of where they lead

• Admitting when we get things wrong

• Prioritizing accuracy over speed

• Letting you, the audience, decide what's best for you

The media landscape is transforming before our eyes. Legacy outlets are becoming increasingly irrelevant, not because they're being "attacked" but because they've squandered the one thing no media organization can survive without: credibility.

The fourth estate hasn't been destroyed—it's being rebuilt, from the ground up, by voices committed to something the old guard seemingly forgot: the truth matters more than the narrative, and the audience deserves better than to be treated like children who need to be protected from reality.

The Media Circus: Still Asking All the Wrong Questions

If you need more proof that the media has learned precisely nothing (spoiler alert: you probably don't), just watch any panel discussion or interview about Biden post-Tapper book revelation. The media circus is spinning its predictable carousel, and honestly, it's less journalism, more reality TV at this point.

I spend an unhealthy amount of time watching news clips on social media (someone has to, right?), and I've noticed the media focuses on exactly two questions when interviewing Democrats:

• "Did you personally witness Biden's cognitive decline in private meetings?" (Who cares? We all saw it on national television, thanks.)

• "Do you think Biden should have run for a second term?" (A not-so-subtle way of asking, "Do you blame Biden for Trump's win?")

But here's the elephant in the room that nobody's addressing: Was Biden ever fit to be president in the first place?

Who cares if he should have run for a second term if he wasn't fit during his actual presidency? The fact that this question is studiously avoided tells you everything you need to know about the media's continued complicity in this whole charade.

Because asking that question would open a Pandora's box of uncomfortable follow-ups:

• If Biden wasn't fit, why didn't anyone speak up?

• Why didn't they invoke the 25th Amendment?

• Did they think Kamala Harris wasn't capable of being president?

• And the million-dollar question: Who was actually running the country if Biden wasn't fit?

Avoiding these questions isn't an oversight; it’s not that they don’t know better—it's strategic. The media is still trying to protect the Democratic establishment while pretending to engage in soul-searching. It's like watching a magician perform a trick, except the magician is a room full of media strategists with too much coffee and too few ethical boundaries.

Watch how quickly they transform a devastating revelation about presidential fitness into a narrower discussion about campaign strategy. It's spin becoming storyline in real time:

Step 1: Book reveals Biden wasn't cognitively fit

Step 2: Media pivots to election strategy talk

Step 3: Narrative shifts from "covering up unfitness" to "poor campaign decision"

Step 4: Everyone pretends we're having the real conversation

And we're all just along for the ride. Wheee!

The Path Forward (That They'll Probably Ignore)

If the media wants to rebuild trust, the path is actually quite simple:

• Acknowledge that the duty to inform trumps all other considerations

• Apply the same scrutiny to all parties and power centers

• Allow the public to form their own conclusions based on comprehensive information

• Prioritize accuracy over narrative

• When you get it wrong, own it—prominently and completely

But based on how they're handling the Tapper book revelations—treating them as surprising discoveries rather than confirmations of what was obvious—I'm not holding my breath.

The fourth estate has become a fallen estate, and the saddest part is, they still think they're standing tall.

A New Chapter in American Media

Here we stand at a crossroads of journalism. The legacy media's coverage of Tapper's book isn't just another news cycle—it's a profound moment of self-revelation, whether they recognize it or not.

The old guard continues its predictable dance: express shock at what everyone already knew, ask superficial questions that avoid true accountability, and position themselves as victims when the public and administrations respond accordingly. It's a tired routine playing to an increasingly empty theater.

But there's hope in this story. The collapse of institutional media credibility hasn't left a vacuum—it's created space for something potentially better. Independent journalists, podcasters, Substacks, and digital platforms are building direct relationships with audiences based on transparency and authenticity rather than access and prestige.

This evolution isn't guaranteed to succeed. The new media landscape will face its own temptations toward bias, sensationalism, and comfort over courage. Power, even distributed power, always warrants scrutiny.

What's different today is that the audience has unprecedented agency. You're no longer passive consumers of whatever makes it past editorial gatekeepers. You're active participants who reward honesty and punish manipulation through your attention, trust, and support.

The question isn't whether traditional media will reclaim its former glory—that ship has sailed. The question is whether what replaces it will learn from its failures. Will we build something better, or simply different packaging for the same old problems?

I believe we have a chance to create a more honest, more transparent media ecosystem. Not because journalists have suddenly become more virtuous, but because the incentives have changed. In a fragmented media landscape, trust is the only currency that matters.

This isn't about right versus left anymore. It's about integrity versus manipulation, candor versus comfort, and truth-seeking versus narrative maintenance.

The fourth estate has fallen, yes. But in its place, we have the opportunity to build something that better serves the original purpose: informing citizens, challenging power, and pursuing truth regardless of whose political fortunes it affects.

The real tragedy would be failing to learn from this moment. But the real triumph? That's still being written—by independent voices committed to earning your trust rather than demanding it.

And that's something worth fighting for.