President Donald Trump’s relationship to the establishment media resembles that of an elephant to insects.
From time to time, of course, the mosquitoes buzz, swarm, and congratulate themselves on having drawn blood. As they do, however, they remain wholly unaware of their comparative insignificance, as well as their debt to the elephant.
On Monday, the establishment mosquitoes at The New York Times received four Pulitzer Prize awards, including one ironic award to photographer Doug Mills, who captured some incredible photographs from the first assassination attempt against Trump on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Needless to say, the mosquito metaphor implies no slight against Mills personally. As a photographer, he does not bear responsibility for his outlet’s pro-establishment editorial voice.
Moreover, Mills showed courage while documenting that terrible event. When the bullets began flying, he operated like a war correspondent. In fact, one of his pictures captured the precise moment that a bullet whizzed past Trump’s ear.
In short, the photographer deserves any plaudits he has received.
The Times, however, is another matter entirely, as are the prizes bestowed on it.
Like the Grammys or the Oscars, the Pulitzer Prize amounts to an incestuous exercise in which the establishment congratulates itself. Meanwhile, in the kind of work so often feted, a majority of Americans do not see their values reflected. Nor can they find much of anything resembling the truth.
Thus, one marvels at the irony of an unworthy establishment outlet receiving praise for its coverage of a worthy man.
Should the NYT dedicate the Pulitzer to Trump?
As legendary Christian author C.S. Lewis once wrote, that sort of irony also contains hidden humor.
“The picture of a fly sitting deciding what it is going to make of an elephant has comic elements about it,” Lewis wrote in the essay “What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?”
Trump, of course, does not merit comparison to Jesus. The comparison here involves not the person but the phenomenon of the unworthy presuming to judge the worthy.
The president, however, does merit comparison to some of his predecessors, particularly George Washington.
“I fortunately escaped without a wound, tho’ the right Wing where I stood was exposed to & received all the Enemy’s fire and was the part where the man was killed & the rest wounded,” the 22-year-old Washington wrote to his brother John following the Battle of Jumonville Glen — ironically in western Pennsylvania — in May 1754, a battle that triggered the French and Indian War.
“I can with truth assure you,” the future Founding Father added, “I heard Bulletts whistle and believe me there was something charming in the sound.”
After the 2024 election, veteran actor Sylvester Stallone drew a direct comparison between Trump and Washington. And the actor did so with good reason. After all, Trump’s courage under literal fire had a Washingtonian quality to it.
Indeed, we sometimes throw out the word “courage” with such promiscuous absurdity, applying it to people and circumstances that do not warrant it (i.e. “I had the courage to be my authentic self,” or some such drivel), that we forget the essential element of self-sacrifice. Only a demonstrated willingness to sacrifice something meaningful truly deserves the adjective “courageous.”
Thus, by accepting the Pulitzer, the Times did nothing more than highlight the contrast between the establishment’s self-congratulation and the president’s self-sacrifice.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
