The seaplane buzzes low over the cerulean waters, its engine sputtering triumphantly as it arcs toward the lush shores of Fantasy Island. Waiting at the dock, arms crossed in his signature “visionary” stance, stands Elon Roarke, the enigmatic steward of the island, his crisp white suit gleaming in the sun. Beside him, practically vibrating with enthusiasm, is Tatu Ramaswamy, gesticulating wildly at the descending aircraft.

“De plane! De plane!” Tatu cries, hopping on the balls of his feet.

Elon Roarke, his piercing eyes hidden behind a well rehearsed smile, faintly chuckles. “Yes, Tatu, our guest has arrived. A man with a dream—or a fantasy—depending on how delusional you think he is.”

As the plane touches down, none other than Donald Trump steps out, his red tie flapping in the breeze like a ceremonial flag. He adjusts his MAGA hat with a flourish, scanning the landscape as if looking for a golf course.

“Welcome to Fantasy Island, Mr. Trump,” Roarke says with a slight bow. “I understand you’ve come to fulfill a bold fantasy. You wish to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. An admirable dream.”

Trump puffs out his chest, his face beaming like a man who just declared bankruptcy and got away with it. “That’s right, Elon. The government’s too fat. It’s inefficient. Bigly inefficient! I want less waste, fewer regulations, more winning. And I hear you’re the guy who can make it happen.”

Tatu chimes in, flashing a toothy grin. “At Fantasy Island, every dream is possible, Mr. Trump. But as you know, every dream comes with a cost.”

Act I: The Forest of Red Tape

Roarke and Tatu lead Trump through the Forest of Red Tape, where bureaucratic vines twist around ancient government buildings, each labeled with the names of federal agencies: “Department of Education,” “Environmental Protection Agency,” “FDA.” The air smells faintly of printer ink and coffee left out too long.

“Here we house the discretionary spending programs,” Roarke explains as they step over piles of tangled regulations. “Defense, education, transportation. All ripe for cuts.”

Trump claps his hands together. “Perfect! Let’s chop, chop, chop!”

“Patience, Mr. Trump,” Roarke cautions. “The island doesn’t bend to simplistic solutions. Look deeper.”

He gestures toward a towering oak tree, its bark etched with the phrase Mandatory Spending. “Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are the true titans here—65% of all government spending. If you wish to save $2 trillion, you’ll need to fell this tree.”

Trump recoils. “What? No way. Social Security? Medicare? Those are untouchable. I campaigned on protecting them! That’s like—like taking fries away from a burger. You can’t do it.”

Tatu raises a finger. “Ah, but Mr. Trump, without addressing mandatory spending, you’ll have to cut nearly every other program to the bone. Or worse, to nothing.”

Roarke leans in closer, his voice soft but commanding. “The island listens, Mr. Trump. It hears your intentions. But it also knows the limits of your ambition.”

Trump grumbles, adjusting his hat. “Fine. Let’s look at the other stuff.”

Act II: The Discretionary Desert

The trio arrives at the Discretionary Desert, where mirages of tanks, schools, and bridges shimmer in the heat. Each mirage represents a budget item, glowing faintly with its price tag: $874 billion – Defense, $137 billion – Transportation, $68 billion – Education.

Trump points at the defense mirage. “I’ll cut that!”

“Bold,” Roarke replies. “You’d be the first president to pull it off. But defense spending is… sticky. Touch it, and you’ll find your fingers glued to an army of lobbyists, contractors, and voters who think you’re weak on national security.”

“And Space Force!” Tatu adds enthusiastically. “Can’t forget Space Force! Didn’t you call it your ‘big, beautiful baby’?”

Trump waves dismissively. “Fine, leave defense. What about… the EPA? They clean stuff up, right? Can’t we cut that?”

Roarke arches an eyebrow. “Certainly. But consider this: millions of Americans rely on the EPA to manage lead contamination, clean water, and pollution. The island will ask, Mr. Trump—do you value clean air and water?”

Trump shrugs. “I’ll tweet something about it. Blame Biden. Next!”

Act III: The Cavern of Conflicting Interests

The mood darkens as they descend into the Cavern of Conflicting Interests, where stalactites drip with glowing subsidies and federal contracts. In the dim light, Trump notices Tesla logos glowing ominously.

“Hey, Elon,” Trump says, narrowing his eyes. “Aren’t those your contracts? NASA? Defense? How much government money are you getting, anyway?”

Roarke, ever composed, smirks. “Fantasy Island has its ironies, Mr. Trump. Yes, my enterprises benefit greatly from federal contracts. Nearly $15 billion, in fact. But you see, that’s the genius of the island. It forces us to confront our hypocrisies. Could you really cut government spending without cutting programs you yourself created?”

Tatu laughs nervously. “The island doesn’t like easy answers, Mr. Trump. It loves irony.”

Trump, for once, is speechless.

Act IV: The Chinese Puzzle Garden

The final stop on the tour is the Chinese Puzzle Garden, a maze of bamboo and mirrors. The deeper they go, the more distorted their reflections become. Trump stumbles upon an image of himself, flanked by Elon and the Chairman of the CCP, shaking hands in the shadow of Tesla’s Shanghai factory.

“What’s this?” Trump demands.

Tatu speaks softly. “China controls half of Tesla’s production, Mr. Trump. Their influence on Elon’s empire is significant. Should they choose, they could shut it all down. The island reminds us that no one is free of entanglements.”

Elon, now visibly sweating, tries to lighten the mood. “It’s all part of the fantasy, right? A little… creative tension?”

Trump mutters under his breath. “I don’t like this place anymore.”

Act V: Judgment Day, or The End of the Party

As the sun sets, the three men gather on the beach. The waves lap at the shore, and the plane waits in the distance.

“So, Mr. Trump,” Roarke says, his tone unusually serious. “Have you found your $2 trillion solution?”

Trump looks down, fiddling with his tie. “Maybe cutting government isn’t as easy as I thought. But hey, at least we tried, right?”

Tatu chimes in, ever the optimist. “It’s not about the destination, Mr. Trump. It’s about the journey—and what you learn along the way.”

Roarke chuckles softly. “Indeed, Tatu. Every guest on Fantasy Island leaves with a lesson, even if it’s not the one they hoped for.”

As Trump boards the plane, he looks back at Roarke and Tatu, a rare glimmer of humility crossing his face. “You know, Elon, maybe you’re not so bad after all. And you, Tatu… keep an eye on this guy. He’s dangerous.”

The plane roars to life, taking off into the twilight. Roarke watches it disappear, hands clasped behind his back.

“What’s next, boss?” Tatu asks eagerly.

Roarke smiles faintly. “The island never rests, Tatu. There’s always another fantasy to fulfill—and another lesson to teach.”

Take-Aways from the DOGE Manifesto

Musk and Ramaswamy’s Razor: DOGE isn’t a government agency—it’s a budget-slashing Austerity Cult disguised as a think tank, spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy under Trump’s watch.

$2 Trillion or Bust: The mission? Ax $2 trillion in federal spending, targeting bloated regulations and inefficiencies. The problem? Most of the fat is marbled into mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare, which account for 65% of the federal budget.

The Untouchables: Tackling Social Security and Medicare is like detonating a political grenade in a nursing home. Everyone agrees reform is needed, but no one wants to pull the pin.

Musk’s Double Game: Critics are sharpening their knives over Musk’s conflicts of interest, with $15 billion in government contracts and subsidies flowing through his companies, plus his deep ties to China. Can the butcher cut himself out of the carcass?

History Isn’t Encouraging: The Grace Commission, Thatcher’s efficiency reforms—sure, waste has been trimmed before, but not without blood, protests, and political martyrdom.

Doom or Discipline?: Supporters hail DOGE as a necessary fiscal intervention; detractors warn it could dismantle critical services. The truth? Probably both.

Small Wins, Big Blind Spots: Musk has Twittered about minor inefficiencies—misused office chairs, redundant agencies—but the trillion-dollar elephants remain untouched.

The Real Battle: DOGE’s success hinges on surviving an onslaught of lobbyists, political egos, and institutional inertia while delivering real cuts without torching the republic.

DOGE isn’t just a cost-cutting experiment—it’s a high-stakes game of financial Jenga, and the tower’s already leaning.

---

In the brutal coliseum of retail, where balance sheets decide the victors and losers, Target didn’t just stumble—it tripped over its own ideological shoelaces. The Q3 bloodbath wasn’t just about supply chains, price sensitivity, or macroeconomic pressures. The elephant in the room—the one mainstream analysts like WSJ, Benzinga, and Yahoo Finance conveniently ignore—is the glaring backlash to Target’s overzealous Woke marketing, which alienated a significant portion of its customer base.

Let’s break it down. Target’s decision to push LGBTQ+ merchandise—including controversial kids’ clothing—front and center during Pride Month wasn’t just a bold move; it was a corporate cannonball into cultural quicksand. The backlash, amplified by social media firestorms and customer boycotts, turned off middle (i.e centrist) America faster than you can say “rainbow onesies.” This misstep didn’t just dent revenue; it fundamentally tarnished Target’s brand trust, turning it from a shopping destination into a political battleground.

Walmart avoided the controversy entirely, doubling down on its essentials-driven model and widening its appeal to six-figure-income households—the Capitol elite of the consumer base. With U.S. same-store sales up 5.3% and a 22% boost in digital revenue, Walmart effectively siphoned off disillusioned Target shoppers, turning them into loyalists.

Meanwhile, Target’s Q3 earnings painted a grim picture. Adjusted earnings per share fell to $1.85—far below Wall Street’s $2.30 projection. Revenue floundered at $25.67 billion, a miss that had analysts scratching their heads but refusing to name the obvious: when you politicize your brand, you risk alienating your core customers. Instead, CEO Brian Cornell served up a bland soup of excuses—macroeconomic pressures, discretionary spending declines, and supply chain woes. All valid factors, sure, but they don’t explain the sheer magnitude of the 21% stock plunge, one of Target’s worst trading days in history.

Margins dropped to 27.2%, a sign of deeper internal struggles. Even promotions like Target Circle Week could only temporarily mask the damage. Outside these flash events, sales plummeted as price-sensitive customers sat on their wallets, wary of spending with a brand that no longer aligned with their values.

And then there’s Walmart, strolling through the same macroeconomic minefield unscathed. While Target grappled with discretionary weakness and cultural blowback, Walmart thrived on grocery dominance and strategic discipline. Its appeal to affluent households wasn’t just a fluke; it was a masterstroke, capturing customers who had grown weary of the culture wars and just wanted low prices and full carts.

Mainstream analysts continue to downplay the cultural backlash in Target’s earnings narrative. The official story is all about macroeconomics, logistics, and shifting spending patterns. But the truth is that Target’s stumble was self-inflicted. “Get Woke, Go Broke” may sound like a Twitter meme, but in this case, it’s an axiom with a billion-dollar price tag.

Target’s response? Slash prices and try to recover in time for the holidays. But the damage runs deeper than a bad quarter. The alienation of a core customer base isn’t easily fixed with clearance tags and rebranded shelves.

The takeaway is clear: in an era where cultural polarization drives consumer decisions, brands must tread carefully. The arena of retail isn’t just about operational efficiency and product quality anymore—it’s a battlefield of values. And in this fight, neutrality might just be the strongest weapon.

Target’s Q3 Performance: The Arena Claims Another Tribute

• Adjusted EPS hit $1.85, a far cry from Wall Street’s $2.30 forecast—a bullseye missed by a mile.
• Revenue stumbled to $25.67 billion, shy of the $25.90 billion consensus—call it a “rainbow fade.”
• Comparable sales inched up by 0.3%, proving that modest gains don’t win arena battles.
• Digital sales grew 10.8%, but total sales stayed flat—more a flicker than a beacon of hope.
• Gross margin slipped to 27.2%, dragged down by cost pressures and inefficiencies, like dragging broken armor through the coliseum.

Challenges Facing Target: A Self-Inflicted Wound

• Costs soared thanks to early inventory imports, an overreaction to a potential port strike that never struck.
• Discretionary categories—apparel, home goods, and electronics—flopped, while essentials were nowhere to be found.
• Price-sensitive shoppers circled only during promotions like Target Circle Week; outside that, crickets.
• CEO Brian Cornell pointed to macroeconomic headwinds, but the rainbow-adorned aisles created cultural whirlwinds of their own.

Walmart’s Q3 Performance: The Victor’s Crown

• U.S. same-store sales leaped by 5.3%, outclassing Target’s meager 0.3%—a true Career tribute in the retail arena.
• Digital sales skyrocketed 22%, as Walmart doubled down on e-commerce dominance.
• Walmart grabbed the high ground, gaining 75% of its growth from $100k+ households—an affluent demographic ditching Target’s ideologies.
• Gross margin climbed to 24.2%, fueled by tight operations and clear strategy.

Consumer Behavior Trends: A Shift in the Winds

• Post-pandemic spending swerved toward essentials and experiences like travel and dining—Target’s discretionary-heavy strategy found no takers.
• Value-driven shoppers prioritized groceries and bargains over rainbow-themed trinkets and discretionary splurges.
• Walmart’s grocery fortress kept it secure, while Target found itself marooned in its own product mix.

Target’s Strategic Adjustments: A Desperate Play

• Full-year EPS guidance slashed to $8.30–$8.90 from $9.00–$9.70—a public surrender.
• Aiming to lure shoppers with promotional pricing and flashy new products. But what happens when your promotions only draw protest signs?
• Acknowledged the need to rethink spending categories, but will that include a cultural recalibration?

Market Reactions: The Fallout

• Target’s stock plunged 21%, marking its third-worst day in history. Year-to-date, it’s bleeding out at -14.94%.
• Walmart’s stock rose a quiet 0.67% after its earnings beat and remains the arena champion with a 64.19% YTD gain.
• Analysts like Wells Fargo and Citigroup cut ties with Target, slapping it with downgrades.

Broader Industry Context: Winners and Losers in the Arena

• Inflation magnifies the pressure on discretionary-focused retailers like Target, where excess inventory clogs the aisles.
• Essential goods champions like Walmart seize the moment, hoarding market share and higher-income shoppers.
• In the new Hunger Games of retail, operational efficiency and strategic alignment with consumer needs decide who survives the cornucopia.

Future Outlook: Betting on Tributes

• Target pins its hopes on holiday promotions and discount strategy—but will it survive the backlash of “Get Woke, Go Broke”?
• Broader trends favor essentials-focused warriors like Walmart over luxury dabblers like Target.
• Walmart’s adaptability and pragmatic approach continue to set the gold standard in an increasingly ruthless retail landscape.

---

CNN, the erstwhile behemoth of cable news, now finds itself in the throes of a spectacular freefall. Once the star-studded nexus of celebrity anchors and polished “objectivity,” the network can now barely pull in a third of the audience it commanded eight years ago. Under new CEO Mark Thompson, the network (owned by Warner Brothers Discovery) is embracing a shiny new “digital-first” pivot — a transformation intended to modernize itself but that just might ultimately serve as its final requiem.

How did the network that once monopolized America’s news cycle end up on life support? The answer is part miscalculation, part hubris. CNN, which built a legacy on highly-produced broadcasts, has found itself outpaced by a new generation of news “content creators” operating semi-independently on platforms like YouTube, Substack, and TikTok. Its audience, disenchanted with carefully-filtered corporate infotainment, has decamped for unfiltered and direct perspectives.

Today, CNN’s ratings plummet as quickly as its production costs rise, and even marquee anchors are watching their contracts slashed or frozen. The weekly stock price of its parent company (since March 2021) reflects this in undeniable terms.

Although the chart shows more than the CNN-effect alone (what does tell it you about the “value” of mainstream entertainment?) the magnitude of the crash (≈88%) is reminiscent of the periodic “corrections” in the Bitcoin price. The difference, of course, is that there will be no new All-Time High on the horizon.

Indeed, Mark Thompson’s restructuring plan is a corporate shell game to cut expenses — layoffs, fewer redundancies, and a streamlined newsroom supposedly geared toward digital growth. But this so-called “digital-first” maneuver is a flimsy rebranding of a network scrambling to salvage its relevance. Formerly astronomical contracts for star anchors are now under scrutiny, with no raises in sight. Even long-standing faces like Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, and Erin Burnett are facing the reality that their name recognition is no longer enough to keep the lights on.

The meat of the matter is that CNN’s high-overhead, celebrity-driven model simply can’t compete with the lean, direct model of independent media. Platforms like Substack and TikTok have proven that audiences are hungrier for authenticity than for anchors who read corporate-vetted scripts. Viewers don’t want seemingly “objective” news; for better or for worse, they want unfiltered perspectives from creators who aren’t beholden to boardroom-approved narratives.

BREAKING NEWS: These independent creators, unconstrained by layers of production teams and editorial oversight, have honed a direct line to audiences craving raw, unpolished commentary. For viewers weary of the network model, they are a refreshing alternative to corporate gloss, providing insights without the need to couch opinions in “neutral” language.

BROKEN NEWS: The emerging crop of news-mongers does not need boardroom approval to call out the Powers That Be, and they don’t care about cultivating a “trusted news source” brand. They speak openly, without worrying about the “balance” that such networks as CNN have tried (and failed) to sustain. Their allegiance is to their followers, not to fund managers and their anonymous shareholders.

Their success is no accident; it’s a rebellion.

Of course, if they become demonetized, their opaque loyalty to advertising dollars will come into sharper focus. Nevertheless, in this new ecosystem, for now anyway, it’s relatability that reigns supreme — and that’s precisely what CNN can’t replicate.

As if oblivious to the socioeconomic shift, Thompson’s digital overhaul will mean gutting production roles, overworking the skeleton crew left behind, and laying the burden onto correspondents and reporters. It has been widely reported that layoffs are looming. The production teams that once gave CNN its sleek, controlled aesthetic are being replaced by digital-savvy hires who are cheaper and quicker. As for the few legacy staff members that remain, they will be expected to individually take on the collective responsibilities of teams that no longer exist.

This isn’t innovation, but austerity, and it’s not only unsustainable, but also tone-deaf. Then again, so is the rest of the Warner Bros. slate of releases. A tired mix of sequels, adaptations far outnumber original productions, mirroring the parent company’s dearth of new ideas, and its plummeting market capitalization going into 2025. As the daily chart of the stock price shows, only one of the last six earnings reports has been positive, suggesting that something’s gotta give.

As if on cue, Chris Wallace, whose multimillion-dollar deal was intended to lend CNN an air of “serious journalism,” has jumped ship rather than accept a pay cut. Jake Tapper, locked into his $7 million contract, is another casualty of CNN’s diminishing allure. Even top talent can no longer expect the network to reward loyalty with security.

CNN’s downward spiral is hardly an isolated case. MSNBC, The Guardian, and other left-leaning media stalwarts are facing similar existential crises. MSNBC has reportedly lost half of its prime-time audience, and Comcast, desperate to stop the bleeding, is considering selling it off.

Meanwhile, The Guardian recently announced its departure from 𝕏, denouncing Elon Musk’s platform as “toxic”—an ironic twist, given their past endorsement of censorship to align political discourse.

This pattern isn’t a coincidence.

Audiences are abandoning legacy media because the brand of “objectivity” that network news once championed has morphed into hollow subjectivity. After years of hyper-partisan coverage, veiled narratives, and high-priced talking heads, viewers are no longer willing to trust the polished facades that media corporations have so painstakingly curated.

CNN’s downfall is an object lesson in Natural Selection. The network isn’t just losing the battle for ratings and market share; it’s losing cultural relevance. Thompson’s attempt to reposition it as “digital-first” won’t reverse the tide. The legacy media’s monopoly on discourse is over.

And as CNN’s influence dwindles, it will be the creators, the so-called “amateurs,” who will, both for better and for worse, shape the future of news delivery.

In an era where audiences prefer relatable voices over corporate refinement, CNN’s multi-million-dollar newsroom is a relic—a flashy dinosaur in a media landscape evolving toward accessibility and transparency. For audiences craving unscripted perspectives, me included, this shift is well-earned poetic justice. It is not, however, a guarantee of quality.

As the big networks fade, the revolution is already thriving in spare rooms, basements, and wherever creators speak their minds freely. The near term is obvious; CNN and its peers are the dinosaurs of this new era, and their extinction is inevitable. Farther out, though, one must wonder if the high-budget poor quality reportage will only be replaced by low-budget poor quality reportage.

For all their flaws, the dinosaurs once learned formal journalism, an education sorely lacking among most of their would-be replacements. Without standards, without rigor, we will be left with mere infotainment and no 4th Estate at all.

---

The growing focus on opinion over facts in mainstream media is deepening societal divisions and skepticism, while younger audiences increasingly rely on social media for news, challenging the relevance of traditional journalism. As these evolving habits reshape information consumption, media organizations are compelled to rethink their strategies for survival.

---

The modern media landscape is finally facing its existential challenge: the erosion of public trust. The mounting data indicate a consistent decline in confidence in the legacy mainstream news outlets, with audiences increasingly turning to alternative sources such as independent journalism and (for better and/or for worse) social media. This crisis has profound implications for how information will be disseminated and consumed, as well as for the shaping of public discourse.

As a case in point, the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart paints a vivid picture of the contemporary landscape, showcasing the variety of “4th Estate Pillars” arranged according to their bias (Left to Right) and reliability (High to Low). Prominent news outlets — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and The New York Times — are all clustered in the middle to upper segments of the chart, indicating that they are relatively trusted. All too often, though, they tend toward analysis and opinion rather than factual reportage.

These financial powerhouses belie notable biases, sitting prominently towards either side of the partisan spectrum. They may not occupy the extreme ends, but their content often reflects ideologies that engender public polarization. They very intentionally exert a measurable influence on their respective audience, wielding their substantial resources to create a heretofore airtight echo chamber. Said bias, and their deep pockets, however, not to mention the inconvenient periodic leakage of the Truth, are the major contributors to the loss of public trust.

Recent surveys conducted by such organizations as Statista, Pew Research, and Gallup provide positively alarming insights into the current state of trust in mass media. Statista’s survey shows that the percentage of U.S. respondents who say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in mass media has dropped to 32%, while 39% have “none at all.” This decline in confidence, particularly over the last decade, suggests that many viewers are increasingly skeptical of mainstream outlets’ ability to report news without bias.

The Pew Research data highlight a generational gap in trust, particularly between younger and older audiences. Younger adults (aged 18-29) have seen a dramatic decline in trust in national news organizations. Notably, their trust in social media as an information source has approached parity with national news organizations.

Yikes!

While older generations still exhibit a preference for traditional media, younger people are indeed shifting away from it, favoring sources they deem more immediate and authentic. These data reveal a mainstream struggling to attract younger audiences which, as news goes, is not necessarily good. The enemy of their enemy may not be their friend, despite the apparently good intentions.

In reality, immediacy and authenticity are poor substitutes for accuracy.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that YouTube and/or 𝕏 are becoming the new echo chambers. Worse, the “content creators” are racing to the bottom in a popularity contest, so hurried are they get their “take” out first in hopes of going “viral”. Rarely do they take the time to script their output, and almost never do follow-ups or issue corrections.

Meanwhile, Gallup’s findings further emphasize the declining trend. Public confidence in newspapers and television news is at an all-time low, with only 16% of Americans saying they have confidence in newspapers and a mere 11% in television news by 2022. The consistent drop points to a structural problem: mainstream media’s perceived alignment with particular interests, as well as the overreliance on editorialized content, diminish credibility.

The Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart also provides insights into the ownership and control of major media outlets. On the left, conglomerates like Warner Bros. Discovery (CNN) and Comcast (MSNBC, NBC News) dominate, while on the right, Fox Corporation’s influence is extensive. This high degree of consolidation means that a small number of companies has significant control over the narratives presented to the public, reducing the diversity of perspectives available within mainstream media.

This consolidation is especially evident in left-leaning media (including the tech companies that own the social media platforms and AI chatbots), where a few major outlets dominate the landscape. This enables more consistent messaging (and/or censorship) and contributes to the homogenization of viewpoints, limiting (if not eliminating) critical debate. As of this writing, less than two weeks after the U.S. election of 2024, the hard data are not yet in on the loss of confidence of disappointed voters who didn’t see what was obvious to Independents and others.

On the right, major outlets like Fox News maintain strong influence but with slightly more diversity in ownership. Again, the concentration of financial resources among these few players fosters an environment where narratives are shaped to align with corporate or ideological interests, further eroding public trust. It is not unlikely that consumers who favor these sources are in for as much of a surprise as the their counterparts at the other extreme realized.

Naturally, the declining trust in mainstream media will drive ever greater numbers toward alternative platforms. These include a few actually independent (i.e. investigative) journalists and/or decentralized media. The majority, however, will probably settle for mere “influencers”. This fragmentation of media consumption will create an environment where the public continues to seek out information that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs, deepening political and social divides.

A commitment to transparency and fact-based reporting could begin to rebuild trust in journalism.

If they hope to stay in business, major media outlets must acknowledge the changing habits of younger audiences, who truly comprise the future. As their viewers lose confidence in them, advertising revenue and business models based on subscriptions and sponsorships will also decline. Worse still, while engaging with the new demographic demands innovations that focus on digital platforms and on-demand content, similar to the personalized nature of social media feeds, such strategies will do nothing to reverse an even more serious downtrend, namely that of attention spans.

In this shifting and fragmented landscape, the importance of media literacy cannot be overstated.

With the rise of decentralized news sources, misinformation will only increase. The observable media trust crisis reflects a fundamental shift in how people perceive and interact with information. On one hand, it’s encouraging to see the giants of yesteryear lose market share. On the other, the majority of consumers are as passive as ever, and seem more eager to be satisfied than to level up themselves.

Yet another data point deserves further scrutiny. As the wider world becomes socially fragmented and increasingly multipolar, the disclosure of previously suppressed information will inevitably result. Those who do their own investigating know well the lies that keep the status quo afloat. Yet, when more and more of the Truth comes out, will the public be able to handle it?

---

4B or not 4B … that is the question. Kidding aside, Aristophanes knew a good joke when he saw one. In his play from ±411 BCE, Lysistrata, the contemporary women decide to withhold intimacy from their husbands until they agree to end the seemingly endless Peloponnesian War. Think of it as the world’s oldest case of “Not tonight, dear; I’m trying to end a decades-long military conflict.”

SPOILER ALERT: In the play, it works. Peace is brokered not by the Athenian assembly but by frustrated husbands with unmet needs. In reality, of course, Athens was ultimately defeated at sea by Sparta, which led to its capitulation and the tearing down of its walls. Not to distracted by the facts, however, the play suggests an idea of Sisterhood as a powerful force capable of enacting political change. Nearly 2400 years later, Spike Lee adapted the story in his film Chi-Raq, reset in the gang wars of Chicago’s South Side.

Enter the 4B Movement, Stage Left, a modern twist on this classic satire—but this time, the joke’s on the comedians. Named after four Korean words that mean “No Dating,” “No Sex,” “No Marriage,” and “No Children,” this South Korean-born movement takes abstinence to new heights. They claim they’re finished with the patriarchy, with society’s expectations, and definitely with male approval. Now, like any great export, 4B is cropping up in America. And it’s not just about “down with patriarchy” anymore—it’s a political stand against the supposed rollback of abortion rights (masquerading as “women’s health”) and the rise of MAGA machismo.

How does 4B work, exactly? Mostly by swearing off every expectation society has ever laid on women. No dating? Check. No marriage? Check. No effort to be attractive? Check. Some even shave their heads and post videos of the transformation, as if to say, “Take that, patriarchy—and here’s the buzzcut to prove it.” Forget “self-care Sunday”; this is the full-time job of NOT caring.

Since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, many feminists fear a return to stricter abortion policies. The movement’s proponents envision a future where Project 2025 and other political forces further limit reproductive rights. Critics argue that foregoing relationships and family formation isn’t necessarily a solution to these concerns. Indeed, most conservative commentators are not only unfazed, mocking the movement as counterproductive, they openly welcome it.

But here’s where it gets ironic. By rejecting society’s mandate to “look good” or date men, 4B feminists are rebelling in a way that starts to feel…kind of conservative. They’re opting for what looks suspiciously like celibate independence. They’re rejecting what modern feminism once fought for—freedom to choose, freedom to flaunt, freedom to be seen. This isn’t the feminist movement of the ’70s; it’s more like radical self-denial wrapped in an abstinence pledge.

Feminist detractors worry that abstinence doesn’t exactly “stick it to the man” so much as avoid him altogether. Meanwhile, conservatives are thrilled, watching women self-isolate into a kind of voluntary convent. “Sure,” they think, “reject marriage and family! Leave more husbands, babies, and tidy suburban kitchens for us.” Even conservative writers are jumping in, publishing op-eds with thinly-veiled smirks about how this movement won’t have the desired impact on society, reproductive rights, or the high-school prom scene.

Now, with Roe v. Wade overturned and abortion rights on the ropes, some American 4B enthusiasts see abstinence as the ultimate political leverage—an argument in favor of female autonomy that doesn’t just go against the patriarchy but ignores it altogether. Yet as The New York Times pointed out in its recent op-ed, “A Sex Strike is a Losing Strategy for American Women,” there’s a flaw here: avoiding relationships may do less to empower women and more to encourage quiet isolation. Who’s left to influence policy if everyone’s sitting out the game?

Let’s back up. Why did 4B take off in South Korea to begin with? Because South Korea has its own special cocktail of economic stress, social expectations, and, lately, an inverted gender war. President Yoon Suk-yeol rode to victory on a platform that dismissed gender inequality as a myth, triggering waves of anger and frustration among Korean women. Korean men, meanwhile, are echoing a sentiment Americans recognize well: “What about our struggles?” Sound familiar? Think Gamergate, but with government backing. For Korean feminists, taking a stand isn’t just symbolic—it’s self-defense.

But as South Korea’s birth rate plummets and movements like 4B gain visibility, critics argue that the ultimate casualty is, well, liberal women. Conservatives point out that the 4B Movement is a harbinger of doom for societies that embrace it, citing South Korea’s demographic decline as proof that feminist extremism kills not only romance but also entire economies. They also promise to reproduce with the growing number of women who reject feminism for the suicide-pact that it is, intending to create more children, not fewer.

Meanwhile, American 4B feminists wrestle with the movement’s identity crisis (if not their own). The USA has its own complex layers of identity politics, with MAGA adherents hailing traditional values that some women genuinely support. With the recent election now fully in the rear-view mirror, Donald Trump has proven to have a dedicated female base who see him as a defender of the “real America,” complicating 4B’s appeal stateside. The movement may resonate with those alienated by today’s politics, but it risks a division that not only alienates men but also confounds would-be allies. And while abstaining might sound good on TikTok, for the millions of American women who value family or tradition, it’s a non-starter.

In the end, 4B poses a question for modern feminism: does self-imposed isolation serve as real empowerment, or does it merely take the ball and go home? Left-leaning critics worry that the movement could push society toward a gender standoff where nobody wins. 4B’s proponents envision a future where autonomy comes at the price of voluntary withdrawal, while its sympathetic detractors see a lonely wasteland of unfulfilled partnerships and missed connections. Cooler heads, mine included, see it as a Nothing Burger, a game in which those who play will lose, and those who don’t will breed the losers into the dustbin of history.

In the sterile world of corporate America, Denise Prudhomme’s 60 years of life did not rise to the level of tragedy, and her passing was briefly barely more than a dark sitcom. At around 7 a.m. on the morning of August 16th, Denise scanned her badge at Wells Fargo, for the last time very much as she had countless times before, and entered Tempe’s local Temple of Corporate Finance, a sprawling labyrinth of cubicles and glass partitions. There, perhaps with a warm cup of coffee in one hand and a cool mouse in the other, as she settled in for her daily toil, she died.

And nobody noticed.

For four days, until the 20th, Denise’s lifeless body slumped across her desk, burning the midnight oil so to speak. The office building hummed with mechanical whirrs and the faint echoes of remote work for, alas, the physical presence of employees had been reduced to a trickle following 2020’s biohazard of mysterious origin. Three floors above the heart and major arteries of office life, the anonymity of corporate existence reached its anticlimax.

Wells Fargo — a titan among Wall Street banks — navigates through crises, regulatory scrutiny, and market fluctuations with singular focus: profitability. If anything, Ms. Prudhomme’s dedication to onsite retirement may prove to be a leading indicator of the sacrifices more American workers can be expected to make before this decade ends. Beneath the bank’s stalwart exterior lies a heroic story of the drive for efficiency irrespective of any human cost, a story of the bottom line above all.

Indeed, Wells Fargo’s impressive stock performance since the beginning of 2023, a (+/-) 42% bump, is no accident.

Rather, it proves the strategic acumen of the board and executive management in these tense times. For example, the divestiture of its commercial real estate loan servicing unit to Trimont is a stroke of genius. The pivot streamlines operations and reduces exposure to volatile markets to refocus on more profitable core areas. By shedding non-core assets and personnel to concentrate on the high-margin divisions instead, Wells Fargo’s leadership is not merely surviving, but thriving.

The appointment of Alex Douklias as Vice Chair of Corporate Banking is another example of this brand of forward-thinking. With an eye on expanding services for large corporate clients, Douklias cements the bank’s leadership in this lucrative sector. For shareholders, these moves signal a commitment to delivering long-term value while maximizing profits.

Operational excellence is not just a buzzword at Wells Fargo; it’s the lifeblood of the bank. Consider the weekly chart of the stock price. My custom indicator, the Triple Differential Moving Average Braid, shows a well-established uptrend, with shorter-term averages consistently above their longer-term cousins. Such an alignment suggests bullish momentum.

However, as the stock price approaches overbought territory, indicated by the shrinking gap between the moving averages, the potential for a downside Mean Reversion rises. The more recent Point-of-Control of the Volume Profile, established by the 2021 lows, currently aligned with the bottom of the Braid, makes an obvious technical target.

While the boardrooms buzz and the stock market rewards the executives’ vision, Denise Prudhomme reflects the quiet desperation necessary to that sustain these titans. Her almost unnoticed departure is not a bug in the system, but a feature. A corporation as vast as Wells Fargo must focus on the greater good: the profitability and efficiency of the entire operation. Sometimes, this means that individuals are overlooked.

It’s not negligence, as some employees have asserted, but the reality of operating at scale decade after decade for over a century and a half.

The daily chart presents a zoomed-in perspective on the same story, with the indicators appearing slightly different on account of the lower time-frame. While the Braid still looks bullish, the shorter-term averages are converging and even crossing, signaling a potential consolidation, correction or even trend exhaustion. The daily Volume Profile suggests a heavy resistance at the high, making the recent move more significant to long term investors. The Point-of-Control again makes a juicy medium term-target for short-sellers, who of course will have tactics of their own for such trades.

In other words, a retracement near to the current daily Point-of-Control should surprise no one, and even be expected before any further price appreciation. Yet, such a move might also be a stutter step down to the potential Mean Reversion on the weekly timeframe, shown above, and last correspondingly longer.

The fact that Wells Fargo’s operations continued seamlessly, however, even with this blip in the news cycle unfolding on local channels nationwide, is a testament to its fixture status in the financial scenery. The machine kept running, profits kept flowing, the bank continued to deliver value to its shareholders, and nothing skipped a beat.

Again, the divestiture of the CRE loan servicing unit — along with nonessential personnel — admirably exemplifies this proactive belt-tightening. Employees are not the only ones making sacrifices, either. For their part, the board and the executive team fearlessly face market volatility, angry customers and spooked employees to make those tough calls that keep Wells Fargo not just competitive, but profitable.

Of course, there will always be those who argue that the human cost is too high, that the focus on efficiency and profitability comes at the expense of the people who make it all possible. Yet others argue the opposite, that the focus on people over profit is ultimately unaffordable, and indeed many can be profitably automated away. If anything, it’s a reminder that in the pursuit of growth, not every worker ant is supposed to have a happy ending.

Ergo, the trend of on-site retirements may therefore be expected to increase in coming years, especially as the ever-louder return-to-work imperatives grow teeth.

As expected, the company’s response was generously stoic: “We are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of our colleague at our Tempe office. Our thoughts and prayers are with their family and loved ones during this difficult time. Counselors, through our Employee Assistance Consulting service, are available to support our employees. We are fully cooperating with the Tempe Police Department in their investigation and will direct all further questions to them.”

Further, since disinfecting the air literally erases the stench of death, they assured their upset employees that the office had been “thoroughly cleaned.” Considering that it was the smell, not the sight or sound and not the undelivered work-product, that first attracted employees’ attention, the gesture is not only humane, but professional. Of course, no amount of bleach will wipe away those profits.

Despite investor satisfaction, though, several employees were quick to bemoan their supposed sour grapes. One even said “It’s really heartbreaking and I’m thinking, ‘What if I were just sitting there? No one would check on me?’”, adding, “To hear she’s been sitting at the desk like that would make me feel sick … and nobody did anything. That’s how she spent her last moments.”

Such self-importance will have a short shelf-life as the economy forces these entitled social insects to show their real instincts for what they are. Let’s not forget that the 16th was a Friday … it’s not as if the building was even open most of the time in question. Surely if the complainers had noticed something fishy in Denmark sooner, so to speak, the local money changers would have hosed down the stalls that much quicker. The math is simple; bodies are bad for business.

When it comes to employees’ list of wishes, let’s just say: Fear the Working Dead!

To be sure, Denise’s unceremonious exit was a product of corporate culture, where human beings are routinely reduced to ID numbers and email addresses, where presence is measured by a green dot on a screen rather than by genuine interaction. Then again, considering how much time these so-called human beings spend on their phones talking to nobody, the loss can be measured as a fraction of Ms. Prudhomme’s relatively insignificant annual income; the company will probably save money, even after expenses. Her passing was almost perfectly unobtrusive, unimportant until it became a logistical problem to solve, a line item on a corporate report. Her workload will be surreptitiously distributed between her erstwhile colleagues, if it hasn’t been already, and her position, though advertised, will most likely go unfilled.

Wells Fargo is not a small-fry podunk bank for dust farmers, but an institution with millions of stakeholders and billions of dollars in assets globally. Decisions made in its boardrooms affect not just employees, but shareholders, clients and even the financial markets. Denise’s flash-in-the-pan rise to temporary fame is not the story of the bank. The Wells Fargo story is one of resilience, strategic foresight, and relentless pursuit of profit. It’s the story of a bank that continues to adapt, to evolve, and to thrive, even in the face of death.

As the proverb says: “The Dog Barks; the Caravan Moves On.”

---