Reality, Denied

For much of the right-wing, dishonesty isn't optional. It's required.

 

🚨NEW: Jillian Michaels on corporate media's favorable coverage of Ayatollah Khamenei💰

"Where's the money trail? Where is it? Just show me the check stubs — because when you have The Washington Post and The New York Times describing the Ayatollah as 'MAGNANIMOUS' and… pic.twitter.com/fxT2adVXC7

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) March 7, 2026

In the video above, health activist/podcaster Jillian Michael contends

When you have The Washington Post and The New York Times describing the Ayattolah as magnaminous and avuncular, taking you all into international power, this is very deliberate and it's absolutely terrifying and this is why people don't trust mainstream media. 

If you were wondering why The New York Times would describe a butcher such as Ayatollah Khamenei as magnaminous and avuncular, rest assured that it did not. The NYT (subscription possibly required) obituary in this regard reads

With his spectacles, Palestinian kaffiyeh, long robes and silver beard, Ayatollah Khamenei cast himself as a religious scholar as well as a writer and translator of works on Islam. He affected an avuncular and magnanimous aloofness, running the country from a perch above the jousting of daily politics.

Thankfully, the NYT did not use the verb "was," but rather "cast himself," implying an image he successfully created.  And he "affected an avuncular and magnanimous aloofness," which does not mean he was avuncular and magnanimous. According to Merriam-Webster (upper case theirs), "affected" means" a) having or showing an attitude or mode of behavior that is not natural or genuinely felt;" or "b) assumed artifically or falsely: PRETENDED."  If the obituary writer had instead used the word "phony," Michaels probably have understood. Probably.

The Washington Post's obituary (subscription possibly requred) of February 28 included

With his bushy white beard and easy smile, Ayatollah Khamenei cut a more avuncular figure in public than his perpetually scowling but much more revered mentor, and he was known to be fond of Persian poetry and classic Western novels, especially Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables.” But like the uncompromising Khomeini, he opposed moderates’ efforts to promote political and social reforms domestically and to secure rapprochement with the United States.

The "bushy white beard and easy smile" makes this obituary a little more problematic.  However, the remainder of the piece is either negative or neutral and the following day, the Post published several responses from readers, the first being a hearty rebuttal.

The reaction from other, more consistently conservative, figures was worse. Fox News reported on a few, including one who claimed "Ayatollah Khamenei executed tens of thousands of innocent people for the crime of disagreeing with him. The New York Times was cool with that."  This is what "cool" apparently is:

He presided over a state that jailed critics and journalists and enforced draconian restrictions on women. By the end of Ayatollah Khamenei’s life, many Iranians viewed him as the dictator of a corrupt and repressive regime whose policies had killed thousands of Iranians and forced countless others into exile.

During the past decade, as bouts of anti-government protests increased in frequency, Ayatollah Khamenei resorted to ever more brutal tactics. In January 2026, he ordered the security forces to open fire on protesters who had initially taken to the streets peacefully over economic issues.

The government said more than 3,100 people were killed, while human rights organizations estimated the toll at more than 6,000 dead. Ayatollah Khamenei blamed foreign “enemies” for provoking the bloodshed.

Several tweeters echoed the criticism leveled by Michaels when she accused the Washington Post and the Times of "taking you into international power."  They were exorcised by the NYT headline Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Hard-Line Cleric Who Made Iran a Regional Power, Dies at 88. One tweeted "The NYT is garbage and another, who has a weekly hour show on NewsNation, commented "You don't hate the media enough."  A third, Marc Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for George W. Bush and is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and columnist for the Post, remarked "You can't be sserious."

My "favorite," though, was from a sitting United States Senator, Tim Sheehy of Montana, who contended "NYT got the headline wrong. Let me help: Radical Islamic terrorist who murdered thousands of Americans got what he deserved. There we go."

This was not an editorial; it was an obituary. Sheehy's headline would be no more appropriate than, when Donald Trump dies, for the headline to read "Two-term President, Whom Many Historians Consider the Worst Ever, Gives Americans Reason to Celebrate."

Also, contrary to what Sheehy and some other Republicans are charging, Khamenei did not murder thousands, or even hundreds, of Americans. However, weirder is the claim that Iran has not become the regional power the Times describes it as in its headline.

President Trump himself has characterized it as a regional, seemingly international, power. After Secretary of State Rubio and Speaker of the House Johnson indicated that the USA struck Iran because it learned that Israel was about to do so, Donald was asked "Did Israel force your hand to launch these strikes against Iran? Did Netanyahu pull the United States into this war?"  He replied

No, I might've forced their hand. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first, they were going to attack first. They were going to attack if we didn't do it. They were going to attack first, I felt strongly about that.  

There is no indication that Iran was about to do that. However, Trump was acknowledging that Iran was capable of attacking our side- whether he meant Israel or the USA. If the former case, the President was conceding Tehran is a regional power; in the latter case, he was conceding that it is an international powe.

It probably was the former and not the latter. In fact, the ability to strike its neighbors is a major rationale for the USA launching this war against Iran. Nonetheless, one conservative after another is rankled because the nation's top newspaper referred to Iran as a "regional power," even though undermining Tehran's standing as a regional power may be the only positive aspect of the war begun by Israel & the USA.

It has been difficult from the start to determine why the regime initiated this conflict. Elimination of the enemy as a nuclear threat seems to be the best rationale, yet the Trump Administration shifts from one explanation to another. That may be why its supporters can't even agree that Iran is a regional power. 

Or causation may be going in the opposite direction. If its supporters are unable to agree on one basic, critical fact about the enemy, perhaps Donald Trump believes that being unclear about motivation is the best political play. In either case, it's wise to hope for the best, plan for the worst, and expect the worst from this crowd.

Share |