Analysis News & Rumors by OutKick

Fauci And CDC Proven Wrong As Massive Denmark Study Shows Masks And Vaccines Failed To Stop COVID

Sat, 18 Apr 2026 15:20:25 -0400

It wasn't that long ago when health experts and government officials told us that we had proven, clear-cut tools to stop the spread of COVID. Force everyone to wear a mask, and get everybody vaccinated.

Anthony Fauci, in a White House briefing in early 2022, said, "We believe we can get there because we have the tools with vaccines, with boosts, with masks, with tests, and with antivirals."

Rochelle Walensky, then head of the CDC, said something similar in 2021: "What I really want to emphasize in this moment is that we have the tools we need to address the Omicron variant. And those tools include what we have been saying…"You really do need to get vaccinated...you need to practice all of those prevention measures, including wearing a mask in public indoor settings."

During a Senate hearing in 2022, she repeated that phrasing: "Our ability to manage this virus today is in large part due to the tools we have, vaccines, tests, treatments, and masks."

There was, of course, no proof that masks or vaccine uptake would prevent COVID infection or transmission, and plenty of data demonstrating the opposite. But politicians and their public health advisors committed down the path of masks and vaccinations because backing down would mean admitting they were wrong.

But boy oh boy were they wrong, as research about the rapid spread of COVID indicated.

Perhaps the simplest way to indicate how useless our COVID policies were at preventing viral spread is to examine how many people got COVID. There are many data points demonstrating this failure, in fact, they've been compiled into several books.

But one team of researchers accidentally disproved COVID mandates by turning their efforts to examining how widespread COVID infections had been in Denmark during a period of extremely restrictive policies attempting to stop the spread of the then-dominant Omicron variant.

This study looked at seroprevalence, essentially, how many people had COVID antibodies as a result of infection between November 2021 and March 2022. During this time period, Denmark had mask mandates, extraordinarily high vaccine uptake, and one of European government's most favored policies, vaccine passports.

Sure enough, they estimate that a whopping 66% of healthy Danish adults got COVID in just over four months. Incredibly, roughly a third of infections were "not captured by SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing."

Infections were transmitted extremely quickly, with "32% of the adult Danish population" infected in "just four weeks." These infections occurred, they wrote, "despite high vaccination coverage in the Danish population."

Importantly, the infection fatality rate of the Omicron variant was also extremely low. They estimated that, per seroprevalence data, it was roughly 6.2 per 100,000 infections, across all ages measured in the study. Unsurprisingly, rates varied wildly between age groups. The 30-day mortality rate broken down by age was as follows:

You can see why it was so important to force 17-year olds to wear masks and get COVID vaccines.

These are all important takeaways, but to put it in proper context, and drive home how useless our restrictions were against infection and transmission, we can look at how Denmark handled the Omicron wave, policy wise. As well as how some "experts" responded to their measures and compliance.

Denmark, during this time period, had mask mandates, vaccine passports, and exceptional compliance. And 66% of the healthy adult population got COVID in just four months.

Very odd that these proven "tools" would not have stopped COVID transmission, isn't it?

When we say exceptional compliance, that's not an exaggeration. Denmark got nearly 90% of their adult population vaccinated by August 2021. Cases then exploded a few months later, despite listening to Fauci and the CDC's health advice.

Other "experts" at the time praised Denmark for their commitment to following science, such as former US Surgeon General Jerome Adams, Eric Topol, and Eric Feigl-Ding.

Topol said that Denmark showed how easy it was to "squash" the virus with masks and vaccine uptake. Same with Jerome Adams, who said their data showed that the "quickest way to end" surges was to "get your vax." Both statements were obviously proven false, though neither acknowledged it or admitted it. When Denmark eventually relented on their policies after they'd conclusively failed, Eric Feigl-Ding criticized them heavily, saying "Danish political leaders have completely lost their frigging minds" by ending all "COVID-19 mitigations." Cases plummeted immediately after they ended their mandates, because those "mitigations" did not work and, as this study demonstrates, a shocking majority of the population had already tested positive.

To sum up then, experts said that we had the tools to stop the Omicron variant: masks and COVID vaccines. Denmark tried those tools, achieved exemplary uptake, only for a study to later find that 66% of the adult population got COVID in a few months, with over 30% testing positive in a matter of weeks.

These policies didn't work, the tools didn't work, Omicron was far less dangerous than other variants anyway, and none of the experts who demanded these mitigations ever admitted any of it. A masterclass of misinformation, bad science, and gaslighting. The perfect COVID experience.

Disney Tacitly Admits They Made A Multi-Billion Dollar Mistake With 'Star Wars' Land

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 21:54:52 -0400

It was just a few short years ago that the Walt Disney Company was proudly announcing and opening their "Star Wars" themed land in multiple parks across the country.

Disney invested billions of dollars in the Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge design and construction, based on a fictional world called "Batuu." They hyped up technology and immersive elements meant to enhance the guest experience and allow for fans to spend hours in Galaxy's Edge. And return time and time again to build up experience points by interacting with props and characters.

"Batuu" was purposefully set in the world of the newest trilogy, led by characters like Rey and Kylo Ren. All thanks to advice from then-head of Lucasfilm, Kathleen Kennedy, to then-Disney CEO Bob Iger.

And now, after just a few years in operation, new leadership at the top is completely changing the entire plan behind Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge. In the process, admitting they completely missed the mark with their multi-billion dollar project.

One former top executive at Walt Disney World once explained in an interview why Galaxy's Edge focused on the new trilogy and not the beloved original movies and characters. Because Kathleen Kennedy gave awful advice to Bob Iger.

"We got a call one day," said former WDW VP Dan Cockerell. "They said, ‘Well, we got some news for you all.’ And the Imagineering guys, they’ve heard this line many, many times during their careers. And I had never been through this." "They said, ‘Well, yesterday Bob Iger met with Kathleen Kennedy, who as a lot people may know was sort of George Lucas’ protégé and headed up Lucasfilm. And they had a conversation. They had a meeting. And Kathleen Kennedy, her point of view was, there are way more Disney Star Wars stories ahead of us than behind us. So we really should think about do we want to build a Tatooine, and build what all the fifty-somethings remember Star Wars is or do we want to build something else which is going to appeal to all the upcoming generations who are going to know the new stories.'"

Don't focus the land on characters people like, focus it instead on the new movies, Kennedy said. And Iger listened. Well, those new movies have come and gone, and "Star Wars" has never meant less in the national conversation. Sure enough, under new CEO Josh D'Amaro, Disney announced this month that they were bringing Han Solo, Princess Leia, and Luke Skywalker into Galaxy's Edge, as well as finally incorporating John Williams' beloved score from the original films.

That's how you know they're admitting they made a gigantic mistake listening to Kathleen Kennedy.

Bringing these characters into Galaxy's Edge makes no logical or thematic sense, particularly since they're being portrayed as their younger selves from the original trilogy. But Disney is desperate to make their gigantic investment in Galaxy's Edge worth it, so they're hoping characters people actually like will bring new fans and keep them there longer.

It's a series of unforced errors. They made mediocre movies that have been mostly forgotten, assumed that people cared about Rey and Kylo Ren or Fin or Poe Dameron, and then bet billions of dollars that their newer stories would be more popular moving forward than the old ones. They were wrong about all of it. None of the depth, complexity, charm, or swashbuckling excitement of the original characters is present in the new movies. Because Kathleen Kennedy was involved in creating them. They haven't released a new "main trilogy" Star Wars movie in years, and aren't close to releasing one.

Now they're having to undo these mistakes, without spending billions to reconfigure the land. What a disaster. And even more frustratingly, a predictable and avoidable one.

Elizabeth Banks Says White Women Should Have Voted For Kamala Harris Because Of 'Hunger Games,' Fascism

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:10:41 -0400

As the political left, particularly in Hollywood, becomes increasingly unmoored from reality or any semblance of rationality, their new preferred buzzword has become "fascism."

Anything they don't like, any policy that does not align immediately with the current progressive consensus, is "fascism." A term so overused it's now devoid of any and all of its original meaning. And celebrities are among the worst offenders. Obsessed with their own virtue, convinced of their own brilliance, all evidence to the contrary, and devoted to dividing audiences with their political ideology.

Look no further than some recent comments from actress Elizabeth Banks, one of the leading proponents of left-wing politics in the entertainment industry, whose blissful lack of awareness, intelligence, and perspective were once again on display in a new interview. Banks, who played the character "Effie" in the "Hunger Games" series, explained that she's disappointed in white women for how they voted in the last election and suggested they look to her fictional character for inspiration.

Seriously.

In a new interview with Bustle, Banks somehow compared the "Effie" character to fighting a "fascist regime" in modern America.

"Effie, for me, is one of the characters that has the greatest arc that I’ve ever played because, obviously, she props up this fascist regime that she benefits from, and it’s not until she really comes to care for and see how unfair it is when they want to pull Katniss and Peta into the games again," she said. "I think in ‘Catching Fire’ when she’s like, ‘I want to be part of this team,’ and you really see her struggling and then by the end she’s like a revolutionary… I wish more of us were becoming revolutionaries! Effie is the model, guys! I don’t understand the 53% of white ladies that didn’t vote for Kamala."

It's exhausting, isn't it? Just the most obvious, generic absurdist view imaginable.

Donald Trump is fascist, like the Capitol in "The Hunger Games," because fascism no longer means authoritarian government, it means enforcing existing immigration laws. Kamala Harris was part of a Biden administration that engaged in numerous authoritarian-style policies or attempted mandates, with her full support. In fact, the Democratic Party was so desperate to defeat Trump they essentially suspended democracy on their side of the aisle and appointed Harris as their new candidate. After Biden was forced to drop out thanks to his humiliating debate performance, which came despite years of Harris and others lying to the American public about his mental and physical capabilities.

But because Banks is a Democrat first, last, and always, her only view is that voting for Democrats defeats fascism. Does she ever explain how, in her insane comparison, women are benefiting from a "fascist regime" that they need to wake up from? Of course not.

Will it ever make sense? No. Will they ever stop? Absolutely never.

Legacy Media Trust Hits All-Time Low As Eric Swalwell Story Becomes Latest Example Of Protecting Democrats

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 16:50:44 -0400

A defining story of the past decade or so has been the collapse of trust in the credibility of legacy media institutions.

The latest survey data from Gallup found that just 28 percent of Americans have a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in mass media to report accurate or complete information. That's the lowest number in the poll's history. Conversely, a whopping 70 percent of respondents have "not very much" confidence or "none at all" in those same institutions. In 1972, that was flipped, with nearly 70 percent of Americans saying they trusted media outlets.

Among Republicans, those numbers are far worse. Just 8 percent of those on the right trust the media to report information fairly. That figure represents a 62 percent decline on the right even from 2015.

And that decline is very well deserved. The latest example of an obvious partisan bias being the reporting around accusations levied at now-former California Congressman Eric Swalwell. Swalwell over the last five to seven years turned himself into one of the most prominent voices on the left. Always outraged, committed to whatever progressive talking points were at a given moment, always with an expression on his face that seemed to imply he couldn't believe he was getting away with gaslighting, lying, and extreme hypocrisy.

Well, that all came crashing down in less than a week. And in the process exposed not just the Democrat Party yet again, but its most willing and helpful partners: legacy media.

Before diving into Swalwell, it's important to back up. Starting around the time when Donald Trump was first elected in 2016, legacy media quite obviously made a collective decision about its news coverage and reporting. Instead of attempting to present stories or information and let readers or viewers interpret for themselves, it would put its thumb on the scale. Pew Research, for example, found in 2025 that 55 percent of journalists don't believe that both sides do not deserve equal coverage. In reality, that number is likely far higher.

Impartiality and fairness among ostensibly unbiased journalists has all but evaporated. This only got worse during the COVID-19 pandemic. While prior generations of journalists believed that their mandate was to hold powerful people accountable, COVID was the exact opposite. The powerful, people like Anthony Fauci, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, or local public health officials, were treated with awe, reverence, and deference. Instead of questioning their statements, decision-making, or mandates, virtually every legacy media outlet promoted them.

Holding the powerful to account turned into holding the public to account. It was your fault for not wearing enough masks, or not wearing the right kind of masks, or for wanting your kid to go to school and have class without wearing a mask. It was your fault for not getting COVID vaccines based on inaccurate promises of efficacy and the disinterest in side effects legacy media demonstrated.

Why did they handle the pandemic this way? Because they do not view journalism as their primary goal or outcome. They are ideologues first, reporters second. And what their ideology said and believed during the pandemic was that Fauci and "health experts" must not be questioned, no matter how absurd their views were, or how quickly they were disproven. Criticism of Fauci, or coverage of his failures would be a betrayal of their political party and the "In this house" messaging it depends on.

There are many more examples of legacy media "missing" stories that would hurt Democrats. The Hunter Biden laptop story undoubtedly impacted the 2020 election, as mass media downplayed, ignored, or in some cases, helped ensure that the story was censored from the internet lest it hurt Joe Biden's campaign. The lab leak explanation for the pandemic was labeled as a "racist conspiracy," before evidence became overwhelming that it was the most likely source of the coronavirus.

Joe Biden's cognitive and physical decline was dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy, with "cheap fakes" becoming one of CNN's most popular terms before his atrocious debate performance. Russiagate was another. And news this week on the first Trump impeachment has exposed yet another media failing.

Now we have Swalwell as yet another shining example.

After the allegations about years of improper behavior surfaced, several reporters took to social media to explain that they'd long heard rumors or reports of Swalwell's actions and simply…did nothing about them.

One Democrat strategist posted on X Thursday morning that "…A reporter with Politico was working on verifying the rumors on Swalwell when he was running for President." He continues, "Two days before he was scheduled to sit down with this reporter Swalwell dropped out of the race. The energy disappeared to potentially take him out, the victims if they were even willing to go on the record never did."

Another reporter, Bethany Allen, said she heard information on Swalwell's behavior in 2020 when at Axios, but because it wasn't her beat, simply passed it along and never reported it. A journalist based in California posted this, saying that "shortly after being elected to Congress in 2013, [Swalwell’s] behavior towards women was known by all levels of our local government and the Alameda County Democratic Party."

The executive editor of American Prospect, David Dayen, wrote "The truth, which will be available for all to see before long, is that Swalwell’s conduct with interns, young staff, and female fans was an open secret for a long time, and yet the party…had been supporting him and raising money for him."

There are many more examples of those on the left admitting that Swalwell's treatment of women was an open secret among Democrats, which would, of course, trickle down to their partners in mass media outlets. So why did it take until now for it to come out?

Well, the legacy media's primary objective is to help and protect its "side." Which is why a majority of these people openly admit in surveys that they don't feel the need to treat both sides equally. Reporting does require those who are making the allegations to come forward. But apparently some did, then interest in the story fizzled as Swalwell stopped running for president. But that's not an acceptable excuse.

Swalwell was a sitting congressman from the country's largest state. He started a campaign for governor, and in some polls, was the leading candidate. He was a relentless force against Trump and the right, with sneering, smirking social media videos, predictable #Believeallwomen hashtags, and was seen as one of the primary leaders of the "resistance" in appearances with good buddy Jimmy Kimmel.

He was prominent enough to deserve scrutiny, particularly in light of the "everyone always knew" messaging we now see. They knew, they just didn't care enough because Swalwell was on the left. And those on the left are never treated with the aggressive mentality journalists take when they can hurt a member of the opposition. Fauci is still viewed as a hero because they never cared enough to point out how many lies he told, or facts he got wrong. All the Democrat Party partners now talking about how it was so obvious Swalwell was engaging in inappropriate behavior were happy to support his candidacy. Until now.

Some look at ~20 percent trust ratings for mass media and wonder how we got here. The real question is why it isn't lower.

What I've Heard, Know, And Think About the Dianna Russini Scandal | Bobby Burack

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:10:12 -0400

On April 7, the New York Post published photos of New York Times NFL reporter Dianna Russini holding hands with and hugging New England Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel at a resort in Arizona. The images prompted immediate questions about the nature of their relationship and the boundaries between reporters and sources.

Russini, Vrabel, and the Times each issued statements attempting to downplay the situation.

"These photos show a completely innocent interaction, and any suggestion otherwise is laughable," Vrabel said. "This doesn’t deserve any further response."

"The photos don’t represent the group of six people who were together during the day," Russini added. "Like most journalists in the NFL, reporters interact with sources away from stadiums and other venues."

"These photos are misleading and lack essential context," executive editor Steven Ginsberg told the Post. "These were public interactions in front of many people. Dianna is a premier journalist covering the NFL, and we’re proud to have her at The Athletic."

One week later, on Tuesday, Russini resigned from The Athletic.

In her public resignation letter, Russini wrote that "commentators in various media engaged in self-feeding speculation" that undermined the outlet’s internal review process.

She is not entirely wrong.

Last Wednesday, OutKick published a column arguing that more facts were needed about Russini’s interaction with Vrabel. The column acknowledged that the optics were unfavorable and raised legitimate questions about ethics, but stopped short of endorsing the internet’s assumption of a romantic relationship.

However, conversations with more than a dozen industry sources, including media personalities, agents, and executives, painted a different picture. Not one source expressed belief in Russini’s explanation. There was no meaningful defense of her account, either privately or publicly.

That absence of support became more noticeable as the story developed. No prominent figures defended Russini in real time. Only after her resignation did Jemele Hill and Michelle Beadle raise the possibility of a misogynistic double standard. They waited until Russini's was buried to defend her. They waited until their support couldn't save her.

By last Thursday, it had become increasingly clear that Russini would not return to The Athletic. The prevailing view was that she had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a coach, whether romantic or not.

At that point, the benefit of the doubt narrowed. Russini maintained that she was on a "girls trip" and coincidentally encountered Vrabel at the resort. That claim could have been reinforced with basic corroboration, such as photos from the trip. None were provided. The absence of supporting evidence weakened her defense. Either that, or she went on the first-ever girls’ trip without taking any photos.

Even now, Russini could attempt to substantiate her account. Producing evidence that she was not vacationing with Vrabel might mitigate some of the reputational damage and improve her prospects with future employers. Instead, she wrote that she has "no interest in submitting to a public inquiry."

Additional factors have compounded the situation. Circulating clips of Russini making disparaging remarks about her husband have further shaped public perception, reinforcing questions about her character.

And her career is likely over because of that.

That's not to say Dan Le Batard or Bill Simmons won't hire her for a podcast under the guise of fighting back against misogyny. But Russini's value is not podcasting. She is an NFL insider, and no serious publication is going to hire her to report on news, given the reputation she inherited last week.

As one executive told OutKick, Russini does not generate enough exclusive reporting to warrant the reputational risk associated with hiring her.

Beyond the individual case, the scandal has prompted broader discussion about industry practices and the potential impact on women in sports media. Multiple female broadcasters have expressed frustration to OutKick about how Russini's photos could undermine the perception of their careers.

I'm not so sure. The knock on women in sports media is no different from that on men: the people in charge tend to elevate the wrong ones. Russini's photos are unlikely to have any impact on the respected women in sports media.

Elsewhere, the insider ecosystem has always operated in a gray area. Success depends on cultivating close relationships with sources, sometimes blurring traditional journalistic boundaries. Still, Adam Schefter, Ian Rapoport, and Tom Pelissero continue to command large audiences. Their bosses view them as among their most valuable employees.

Russini’s downfall is specific to her own circumstances.

In a profession built on trust, Russini lost the trust of the industry and the public. Whatever the truth is, they have already made up their minds.

Based on the response, some had their minds made up about her before they ever saw her caressing Vrabel alone by the pool.

ESPN Ratings Surge As Network Pivots Away From Woke Commentators

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:50:50 -0400

We recently explored how ESPN has pivoted away from far-left commentary by parting ways with commentators like Elle Duncan, Sarah Spain, Bomani Jones, Mark Jones and Clinton Yates. As expected, the network is more popular because of it.

This week, ESPN released viewership averages for the first quarter of 2026. Its daily studio lineup is up 14% year over year. Five programs scored their highest-ever Q1 ratings, including Get Up and The Pat McAfee Show.

Interestingly, First Take airs between Get Up and The Pat McAfee Show, but was up only 5%. That figure stands out because it aligns with the standard increase tied to Nielsen's new Big Data + Panel measurement system, which debuted in September.

Stephen A. Smith fatigue? Perhaps.

But First Take is the one show on the network that still pushes social issues related to race to the forefront of the sports conversation.

Look at the shows with the largest year-over-year gains at the company: NFL Live +30%, Get Up up 18%, and The Pat McAfee Show up 16%. These programs rarely, if ever, drift away from general sports talk. They also lean heavily into the NFL year-round and do not push made-for-social-media NBA banter.

Put simply, the shows that focus the least on race and basketball are growing at the highest rates.

No example illustrates this better than the trajectory of the 6 pm SportsCenter. Since Elle Duncan's departure, the network says the program is up 27% year over year. Duncan had become one of the most toxic commentators at the company, whether discussing C-sections on air, protesting "Don't Say Gay," or advocating for nationwide abortion access.

We suspect Netflix will soon regret its investment in Duncan, if it has not already.

Based on viewership, ESPN audiences are most drawn to commentators whose enthusiasm feels genuine, including McAfee, Laura Rutledge and Peter Schrager.

ESPN appears to finally understand this. During the football season, the company brought in podcast outsiders Josh Pate, Will Compton and Taylor Lewan as guest commentators. Expect them to become more visible across the network next season.

For all the changes at ESPN since 2020, programming a sports network should not have been this difficult. It is clear what viewers want. The overly condescending political commentators were never in demand, despite how much the previous regime under John Skipper tried to prove otherwise.

Thus, current executives Burke Magnus and Dave Roberts deserve credit for recognizing that and pivoting back toward content that resonates with sports fans.

There are still areas to improve, of course. Ryan Clark is an obvious net negative to the network. Stephen A. Smith too often appears disinterested in the conversation. David Dennis Jr. exhibits a level of desperate buffoonery that undermines the brand.

Still, for the first time in nearly a decade, ESPN's daily programming is moving in the right direction. We will see if the network can hold it together once Caitlin Clark and Shedeur Sanders return to action.

Brendan Carr Will Be An American Hero If He Keeps NFL Games On TV

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:20:30 -0400

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr will be an American hero if he can keep NFL games on television and away from streaming.

Last week, the Department of Justice opened an investigation into the NFL over whether the league used anticompetitive tactics against fans. Carr suggested Tuesday that the probe is related to the league taking games off television in favor of streaming services.

"I think long-term there’s been a great partnership between broadcasters and sports leagues that’s helped them to grow their fan base, and Americans have enjoyed sitting down after the day, turning on TV, and very quickly, and usually for free, finding their favorite team playing, and that experience has become frustrating for lots of Americans over the years," Carr told CNBC.

"I do think there’s a point at which the NFL reaches a tipping point where they’re sticking too many games behind a paywall, in which case it really raises a lot of questions about the scope of that."

Carr said last month that officials are reviewing thousands of comments on whether a significant share of sports should remain free on broadcast television.

"We actually got thousands and thousands of comments. It was a big number for the FCC. The vast majority so far, based on an initial assessment, support keeping a significant portion of these sports games on free, over-the-air broadcast TV," he said.

Carr has a rare opportunity to bring Americans of all political affiliations together.

A new Fox News poll found that nearly 6 in 10 sports fans say they have skipped watching a game at least a few times in the past year because it was too expensive. Another 72% of fans said that major sporting events should be required to stay on free broadcast television, not behind streaming paywalls.

Estimates say that paying for all the channels and services that carry the NFL this season could cost fans around $800.

And that number is expected to rise.

The expectation is that the NFL will opt out of its current media rights deals in 2029 and seek more money from streaming services. The idea of a streaming-only Super Bowl became more realistic earlier this year when YouTube secured the exclusive rights to air the Oscars starting in 2029.

Current NFL streaming partners Amazon Prime, Netflix, and YouTube could all be interested in airing the first-ever streaming-only Super Bowl.

That is, unless the DOJ and Carr can prevent it.

The NFL is likely to argue that it still partners with television networks and only sells some games to streaming services because they pay more. In theory, any traditional network could bid for the league’s newly created five-game package, expected to include games on Thanksgiving Eve, Week 1 in primetime, Black Friday, and Christmas Day. The issue is that traditional networks often lack the financial resources to compete with major streaming companies.

The outcome of DOJ’s investigation could also affect other leagues. While the NFL is the biggest league in America, MLB and the NBA have also moved games from television to streaming in recent years.

America is rooting for Brendan Carr.

Dianna Russini Resigns From The Athletic; What's Next?

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:19:15 -0400

Dianna Russini resigned from The Athletic on Tuesday, one week after photos surfaced of her hugging and holding hands with New England Patriots coach Mike Vrabel at a resort in Arizona.

Russini provided the following statement to the AP:

"I have covered the NFL with professionalism and dedication throughout my career, and I stand behind every story I have ever published. When the Page Six item first appeared, The Athletic supported me unequivocally, expressed confidence in my work and pride in my journalism. For that I am grateful. In the days that followed, unfortunately, commentators in various media have engaged in self-feeding speculation that is simply unmoored from the facts.

"Moreover, this media frenzy is moving forward without regard for the review process The Athletic is trying to complete. It continues to escalate, fueled by repeated leaks, and I have no interest in submitting to a public inquiry that has already caused far more damage than I am willing to accept. Rather than allowing this to continue, I have decided to step aside now, before my current contract expires on June 30. I do so not because I accept the narrative that has been constructed around this episode, but because I refuse to lend it further oxygen or to let it define me or my career."

As OutKick reported, The Athletic miscalculated the scale of the story during its initial response. By Thursday of last week, it had become apparent that Russini’s standing as a reporter had diminished to the point that a return was unlikely. The Athletic opened an investigation into the matter shortly after.

The general speculation to which Russini refers is that she engaged in a romantic relationship with Vrabel, who, like her, is married with children. In any case, the photos of them holding hands and hugging create the impression of a highly inappropriate relationship between a reporter and a coach.

That is not to say Vrabel is entirely innocent. As the leader of a football team, he will have to look his players in the eye this season, as many of them are likely to question his denial of a relationship with Russini. Still, Vrabel now faces moral questions. Russini faces both moral and ethical concerns. That's the difference.

Perhaps Russini could have shifted perception had she produced photos from the "girls trip" she claimed she was on before meeting Vrabel. She did not.

As a result, it may be difficult for Russini to find another job as an NFL reporter. Her credibility has been damaged. To many, she will now be defined by her association with Mike Vrabel.

She could land in a different media role, such as podcasting with figures like Dan Le Batard or Bill Simmons. However, as a traditional news reporter, we doubt she can regain that status.

Put bluntly, few people in sports media have ruined their careers this quickly.

No, Megan Rapinoe, Science—Not Sentiment—Should Guide Women’s Sports | Payton McNabb

Sun, 12 Apr 2026 08:00:55 -0400

The International Olympic Committee recently announced a new policy protecting women’s competition by limiting it to biological females only. Under this new policy, the IOC will implement a one-time sex verification process to ensure fairness and safety. It’s a return to normal: The women’s category should have always been, and should always be, for females only. For many female athletes, this decision feels like a breath of fresh air. Finally, there is some common sense returning to women’s sports!

But not everyone agrees. Former U.S. soccer star Megan Rapinoe recently criticized the policy, calling it "horrible," "invasive," and not rooted in science. She framed the move as primarily political and unnecessary, arguing that the issue of fairness in women’s sports has been overstated.

Megan, I really wish that were true. But I know firsthand it’s not.

As a high school athlete, I was critically injured by a male competing on the girls’ volleyball team. In one single moment, what you are claiming is "overstated" drastically altered my life. The ball struck me with a force I wasn’t prepared for — because my body wasn’t built to absorb it. That injury not only ended my athletic career; I’ve dealt with vision problems, neurological issues, and lasting physical and emotional consequences. I haven’t been the same since.

So when I hear someone say this is an inconsequential issue, I have to ask: for whom? Because for girls like me, it is absolutely consequential. And unfortunately, I’m not the only one affected.

According to data cited by the Competition Report, published by Independent Women’s Law Center, males develop larger lungs and larger hearts than females, resulting in greater aerobic capacity. That means increased endurance, oxygen uptake, and overall physical output. The differences certainly don’t stop there. In addition to higher bone density, greater tendon strength, and faster reaction times, "grown males have approximately 36 percent greater muscle mass than grown females (with about 40 percent more muscle mass in the upper body, and 33 percent more muscle mass in the lower body)."

Testosterone-driven puberty permanently alters speed, power, and explosiveness — advantages that are not erased by hormone suppression. This is why, across nearly every sport, male performance outpaces female performance. It’s why records differ. It’s why the two categories exist in the first place.

In contact and high-speed sports, differences in strength and power translate directly into an increased risk of injury. When governing bodies ignore that, female athletes are the ones who are vulnerable to serious, career-ending injuries and losing their hard-fought medals and records.

Rapinoe claims this policy is not rooted in science. But the opposite is true. This policy is rooted in decades of scientific consensus about sex-based differences in human physiology. What is not rooted in science is the idea that identity alone can override those differences.

Rapinoe asserted that the IOC’s rule was another way to "‘just hate trans people,’ which is such a small percentage of the population." But calling this a "small percentage" is not an argument. The entire purpose of rules in sports is to ensure fairness, even in niche cases. We don’t allow athletes to take drugs just because only a few athletes cheat. We don’t say rules don’t matter because violations are rare. We enforce them because integrity and safety demand it.

Furthermore, trans-identifying athletes are not banned from sports. Like everyone else, they are able to compete on teams that align with their biological sex. Trans-identifying males ("trans women") can still compete on the men’s team regardless of how they identify.

The IOC’s decision may have ruffled some feathers, but it’s the right one and should never have even become a debate to begin with. It is not political to have separate categories and fair play. It has taken mass propaganda to convince an entire swath of people that male "inclusion" in women’s arenas is a normal and safe practice. The IOC decision recognizes that the women’s category must be solely for females. And it affirms that science, not social pressure, must guide policy from here on out.

Megan Rapinoe is entitled to her opinion. But opinions don’t change biology. And biology is exactly why this policy is right.

Payton McNabb is a sports ambassador for Independent Women and former three-sport high school athlete who turned tragedy into triumph after a traumatic brain injury ended her athletic future.

Dianna Russini’s Career Officially In Question Amid New Probe Into Vrabel Photos

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 20:30:08 -0400

OutKick reported earlier this week that Dianna Russini’s chances of retaining her job at The Athletic were in question as backlash grew after photos surfaced of her hugging and holding hands with New England Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel.

The outlet initially defended her, saying, "These photos are misleading and lack essential context." Now, it appears to have new doubts about her relationship with Vrabel.

On Friday, Front Office Sports reported that The Athletic has shifted its tone and is now probing Russini’s explanation of the photos. Page Six added that she will be sidelined during the investigation.

"New details from the Page Six report and information from the investigation raised additional concerns that are now being reviewed further," the outlet explained.

One potential issue is Russini’s reported claim that she was on a hiking trip with two female friends before visiting the Arizona resort where Vrabel was staying. If true, there would likely be photos of her with those friends. As of publication, there are none known to the public or sources close to the matter.

If The Athletic concludes that she was dishonest with managers, the New York Times-owned outlet could expedite her exit.

Even without definitive proof of a romantic relationship with Vrabel, as widely speculated, ethical concerns remain. At minimum, she was seen lying next to a coach she covers at a pool at an "adults-only" resort.

"Whether accurate or not — and we do not know for certain — the perception is that she had an affair with an NFL coach and used that relationship to report on his team. There is little she can do to change that view.

Former CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin will always be known as the reporter who accidentally masturbated on a Zoom call during the pandemic in front of colleagues. In all likelihood, Russini will now always be the reporter whom the public thinks cheated on her husband with Mike Vrabel.

Put simply, her reputation is damaged.

It also does not help that no colleague or media figure has publicly defended her as of Friday. Discussion of her conduct has only intensified across podcasts and social media.

It is difficult to see how Russini returns to breaking NFL news with any real credibility, at The Athletic or elsewhere.

How Mainstream Sports Media Is Tainting Jackie Robinson’s Legacy

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 20:07:48 -0400

Today is a special day in sports history. On April 10, 1947, Jackie Robinson signed his first Major League Baseball contract. Five days later, Robinson would make more history by playing his first game for the Brooklyn Dodgers, breaking the color barrier in baseball.

It is a story, a day, and a reality that should make every sports' fan in America swell with pride. Sports was playing an essential role in rewriting the wrongs of racism our country was plagued by.

Fast-forward 79 years and, according to some sports media members, outlets, and players, you would think that we, as a nation, have made little progress with the issues of prejudice and segregation in sports.

Unless you live under a rock, you know that ESPN has been hellbent on inserting race into every possible conversation. Whether that be on "First Take," which seems to include some of the most egregious examples, or the now canceled "Around the Horn," it gives you the impression that our country is in trouble racially.

Here are a few examples to prove this point:

ESPN's highest paid personality, outside of Pat McAfee, is no stranger to making a sports conversation about race.

Clark's name has become synonymous with race-baiting on ESPN. He seems to find a strange joy in inserting race into every possible conversation he can on the network and on his podcast, "The Pivot."

Another lightning rod for the race-obsessed media was the rise and fall of former Colorado and current Cleveland Browns quarterback, Shedeur Sanders. Many in the media insinuated, or overtly stated, that Shedeur Sanders fell in the NFL Draft due to racism. That racial narrative followed him throughout his rookie campaign.

From the outset of the New England Patriots hiring former player and former linebackers coach Jerod Mayo, the conversation was not necessarily about what Mayo could bring to the table as a coach to ensure the Patriots could get back to their winning ways. It was about the color of his skin. Much of his first press conference was focused on his immutable characteristics, rather than his coaching ability, strategy, and other football-related qualifications.

Clearly, an argument is being made that racism is still a massive issue in sports and America. From the way these sports media personalities talk, you’d think race relations today are not far removed from — if not comparable to — those of 79 years ago, when Jackie Robinson broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier. As for me, I call nonsense.

I could go on at length about why the Rooney Rule — which requires NFL teams to interview a Black or other minority candidate when hiring a head coach or general manager — is, in my view, regressive and even disrespectful. It can put candidates in the position of wondering whether they’re being seriously considered or simply interviewed to check a box based on their skin color, rather than their character and ability to do the job at the highest level.

ESPN NFL analyst Mina Kimes lectured everyone about the NFL’s "lack of diversity" at the head coach position in 2020 during the peak of the Black Lives Matter movement. She also had a similar diatribe in 2023, and now sports media is still crying "RaCiSm!" in 2026 because none of the ten head coaching openings went to black coaches, though the league has seen many black head coaches for decades.

ESPN's Peter Schrager said to me in an X exchange, "7 of the 10 teams that didn't hire a minority HC this year have hired minority HCs before. The other three have had minority GMs." So the narrative that racism is an issue in the NFL seems to fall flat.

That hasn't stopped some personalities claiming otherwise, though.

Former Fox Sports personality Emmanuel Acho went as far as saying there is "systemic racism" in the NFL.

Sports media personality Bomani Jones said, "The NFL has a cancer of racism…"

This victimhood argumentation is so tiresome & nauseating. It's making up a problem where there is none.

Imagine if I said, "Nearly two decades after the NFL implemented the Rooney Rule, white cornerbacks continue to be largely shut out of starting jobs. And the problem is only getting worse..." I would hope you'd laugh me out of town and call me a clown.

I mean, just look at the end zones during an NFL game. They say, "End Racism." These leagues want you to believe racism is alive and well.

The NFL's week one games, as well as the Super Bowl, now include an additional National Anthem specifically for black fans. It's racially divisive in my opinion, and doesn't help heal the divide they claim is ravaging our country.

The NFL, NBA, WNBA, MLS, and other sports leagues are full of black athletes. In many of these leagues, the majority of athletes on the field, court, etc. consist of black players.

Why stop with the examples? Here are a few more showing how race has taken center stage in the sports media conversation and programming over the years, before I get to my final remarks:

I could go and on. There's almost too many examples of perceived racism to count.

Heck, the sports media was screaming from the rooftops about the "historic" number of black QBs starting Week 1 of the 2025 NFL season. Sixteen to be exact. Then they’re silent. Why? Black QBs were a let-down. More than a third were benched and eleven out of sixteen didn’t make the playoffs.

If they celebrate someone based solely on their skin color, they should also be able to critique them based on it too.

The sports media’s lack of consistency here is astounding. But hey, they’re consistently inconsistent. I’ll give them that.

More than anything, we have to stop all of this identity politics nonsense in sports. In my opinion, it devalues Jackie Robinson's legacy. He didn't fight to break the color barrier just so the sports media could create new ones.

I judge quarterbacks and other athletes by their play, not their skin color. After all, sports are about meritocracy; not diversity, equity and inclusion.

The sports media is IN LOVE with promoting and elevating black athletes because they either believe the country and/or many of the sports leagues in America are foundationally racist, or they are just obsessed with the victim narrative, in my opinion.

Do you also notice that almost every single one of these examples is from a black host, reporter, or player?

Jackie Robinson once said, "The right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time."

He went on to say, "Negroes aren’t seeking anything which is not good for the nation as well as ourselves. In order for America to be 100 percent strong — economically, defensively and morally — we cannot afford the waste of having second- and third-class citizens."

There has never been a better time in America to be a black athlete, coach, front office employee, or media member. That's progress. That's what Jackie Robinson fought for, but it doesn't feel like it if you asked many of these media members.

Personally, I believe all of this talk about race only divides us further and is a massive waste of time. Sports should be an outlet away from racial politics, yet it's ingrained in many of the conversations in sports media.

To think that a nation whose most popular and highest paid athletes and sports media personalities are black, whose highest positions of political and corporate power have been held by black folks, is somehow racist, is a bunch of divisive malarkey if you ask me.

This is the beauty of sports: the best athletes play and get rewarded. Fans enjoy watching the best of the best, regardless of skin color. I don’t care what color the cornerback, power forward, coach, or quarterback is, I just want to see the best play the best while cheering with other fans.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach Todd Bowles said it perfectly when asked about coaching against then head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers, Mike Tomlin: "I think the minute you guys (media) stop making a big deal about [racial representation in coaching], everybody else will."

If the sports media took Bowles’ statement to heart, we could come together five days from now on Jackie Robinson Day and watch every player in Major League Baseball — Black, white, and everything in between — wear No. 42. We’d be reminded of how sports can drive positive change and unite Americans, just as Jackie Robinson intended.

Far-Left, Cop-Hating Loon Mark Jones Out At ESPN

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 14:10:21 -0400

In a positive development for college football fans, Mark Jones is leaving ESPN.

The Miami Herald reported that the decision was Jones’, and that his final broadcast with the network will be Sunday. Of course, if ESPN wanted to keep him, he wouldn't have "decided" to leave. The network may also prefer framing the departure as Jones’ choice to avoid the inevitable backlash of parting ways with a radical race idolator.

And if there was one person at ESPN who was more racially charged, loathsome, and privileged than Ryan Clark, it was Mark Jones.

Jones has made fewer headlines over the past year after leaving X for Bluesky, the former of which he described as "too hateful." We find such phrasing amusing, considering that there is no one more hateful in the sports media industry than Jones.

Mark Jones is sick. Every one of the actions above should have resulted in his immediate firing. The fact that ESPN stood by him this long is an indictment of every executive inside the building.

Moreover, the widespread belief is that Jones is not actually racist. The word on him is that the black community mocked him so badly for marrying a white woman that he has made it his life goal to prove he is black enough.

Imagine wanting people to think you are racist. That is Mark Jones. He is a fraud.

OutKick’s Dan Dakich, who previously worked at ESPN with Jones, explained it a few years ago.

"Mark Jones is the Ja Morant of broadcasting," Dakich said. "They are trying to be something they are not. Ja Morant is trying to be a tough thug. Mark Jones is a suburban guy married to a white woman. But he is trying to be something he is not. He sees cat money ... but it is a little bit tough when you live in the suburbs, your kids go to private schools, and you are married to a white woman."

College football fans will rejoice that they do not have to hear Jones call another game featuring Deion Sanders as coach.

We will see if Jones can find a suitor on the open market. Interestingly, networks like Netflix and NBC have also shown a tolerance for racial idolatry with the likes of Elle Duncan and Maria Taylor.

But Mark Jones is such a cringeworthy, humiliating dork. Any network that employs him immediately sacrifices credibility and quality.

And if he is forced to retire, at least he won't have to worry about racist, murderous police officers escorting him to the broadcast booth anymore.

Paramount's Woke 'Star Trek: Starfleet Academy' Show Was Insane Ratings Disaster

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 19:40:56 -0400

After years of Hollywood trying to force woke content based on historic franchises down audiences' throats, it's finally backfired on them.

"Star Wars" got the left-wing ideological treatment, thanks to former Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy, producing "The Acolyte," a short-lived Disney+ streaming show that leaned heavily into progressive politics. To the point where the creative talent behind the series bragged about their efforts to inject their beliefs into a "Star Wars" show.

That was canceled after one season due to low viewership.

Then, another franchise got the "woke" treatment, with "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy." The Paramount+ show based on the legendary "Star Trek" franchise, "Starfleet Academy" almost immediately turned into a recurring punchline. Storylines were atrocious and absurd. The writing and acting was amateurish and obnoxious. Each episode was worse than the next.

Well, it turns out, that nobody wants to watch yet another predictable, boring, left-wing show based on a beloved, formerly great brand name. This week, a new report came out confirming that there was a catastrophic lack of viewers for "Starfleet Academy."

Mike Stoklasa from Red Letter Media said in a new YouTube video that he'd heard from a source who worked on the show that total viewership figures for it had been atrocious.

"I heard from my source," he said. "The entire first season of ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy,' not individual episodes, the entire season total views, about 400,000. Not per episode. Cumulatively, the entire series. About 400,000 views. Which is an average of maybe 40,000 views per episode."

That is indescribably low. And it makes Paramount's decision to cancel it that much more understandable. Well, cancel it is an understatement.

For some inexplicable reason, the previous regime at Paramount Studios greenlit a second season of "Starfleet Academy" before the first season had aired. Somehow assuming that a woke version of the show would find a large audience. Well, now that we've seen it fail, as any outsider would have predicted, they announced that the show would end before the second season even aired.

That essentially unprecedented decision makes a lot more sense now. 40,000 viewers per episode is an embarrassment. Paramount+ isn't exactly Disney+ or HBO Max, but for the budget that show received, it's jaw-dropping. That amount of money lost on that show, with those numbers, is incalculable. Disaster doesn't even begin to cover it.

And therein lies the problem. For years, Hollywood has churned out woke content because the creative teams behind them incorporate their political beliefs wherever possible. Even if it has no business being there. Sure enough, at some point, people tune out. Audiences know better, they're sick of being lectured to, or having their beliefs criticized and demonized. This is just the latest in a long list of examples.

Now that David Ellison has taken over, it's a near-certainty these types of shows end. At least in the studios under his control. But once again, you have to be amazed and in awe of how much money the entertainment industry was willing to loes to promote their political beliefs and massage the egos of Hollywood creatives.

We Need More Information About Dianna Russini's Suspicious Photos With Mike Vrabel

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 17:30:04 -0400

Tuesday night, the New York Post’s Page Six published photos of New England Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel hugging, holding hands, and swimming with New York Times NFL reporter Dianna Russini at an "adults-only" resort in Sedona, Arizona.

Both Vrabel and Russini downplayed the meeting in statements to the Post.

"These photos show a completely innocent interaction, and any suggestion otherwise is laughable," Vrabel said. "This doesn’t deserve any further response."

On the surface, the photos look bad. Russini covers the NFL and reports on coaches like Vrabel. Both are married, which has fueled speculation on social media about a possible affair. We suspect neither of their spouses are thrilled with the interaction.

But OutKick has tried to separate itself from other outlets by not rushing to conclusions and instead focusing on what we can establish as fact. As of publication, we can say the following with certainty: Russini and Vrabel spent time together at a resort, were in a pool together, and shared a goodbye hug.

That is the full extent of what the photos confirm.

There is nothing in the images that proves a romantic relationship, as speculated. We also know the two have had a professional relationship for years, one Russini has discussed publicly.

Traditional reporters might argue that even a platonic, poolside interaction between a reporter and a coach is inappropriate. In a previous era, that would have been the consensus.

However, the modern insider ecosystem operates differently. Many high-profile NFL reporters maintain close, informal relationships with sources. ESPN’s Peter Schrager attended Sean McVay’s wedding. Fox Sports’ Jay Glazer trains with players and coaches. ESPN’s Adam Schefter has acknowledged spending thousands of dollars on gifts for sources.

This is not a defense of Russini so much as a reflection of the industry in which she works. The boundaries between reporters and sources are blurred.

Without additional information, it is difficult to distinguish Russini spending time with Vrabel from similar interactions between other insiders and their sources.

Still, optics matter. Russini and Vrabel both understand that images can shape perception. In the NFL, what is seen often carries more weight than what is explained.

For now, her employer is standing by her.

Since the report, past clips of Russini have trended on social media, including one in which she jokes about her husband on air.

In isolation, the clip appears to be harmless humor, similar to jokes she has made about her mother in the past. Paired with the photos, however, skeptics have other interpretations.

While the payoff is in either calling for Russini's firing or accusing her detractors of using stereotypes about women to undermine her career, we won't do either.

We need more information.

Was this a casual moment between two friends taken out of context by a photographer with an agenda? Or is there more to this story, raising serious profound questions about the employability of both a reporter and a football coach?

Disney Forces Woke Director James Cameron To Slash 'Avatar' Budgets After 'Fire And Ash' Box Office Disaster

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 16:40:33 -0400

Woke may not be dead when it comes to real world political ideology, but the last six months have shown that woke is certainly dead when it comes to major movies.

Not just when it comes to "woke" movies that have flopped at the box office, most recently "The Bride!," a feminist retelling of the Frankenstein story directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal out of hatred for President Trump, but also with films that have been successful at the box office.

"Project Hail Mary" has been a runaway financial success, with $222 million earned at the domestic box office in just a few weeks in theaters, with $425 million at the international box office. The writer of the original story, Andy Weir, specifically highlighted that he intended to avoid politics, and "identity politics" in particular, when coming up with the plot.

Well, in the latest example of "woke" becoming a brand associated with failure, Disney has essentially admitted that one of its largest budget projects, "Avatar," has declined, dramatically.

"Avatar" has been one of the most prolific, financially successful franchises in Hollywood history. The first film set records, with nearly $3 billion in worldwide box office, still the entertainment industry's highest total gross. It's in the top four in the rankings of highest domestic box office gross, despite releasing in 2009.

The second film, "Avatar: The Way of Water," was another massive financial success. While it didn't reach the heights of the first film, it made a whopping $2.33 billion in the United States and international markets. But audiences seemed less interested in the story, characters, and plot development, an unsurprising outcome considering director James Cameron has shown little interest in anything other than politics over the past few decades.

That's not an exaggeration, it's a description of how Cameron's chosen to spend his time. In an interview promoting the latest entry in the franchise, "Avatar: Fire and Ash," Cameron took time to criticize the United States and extol the virtues of New Zealand.

"People there [New Zealand] are, for the most part, sane as opposed to the United States where you had a 62% vaccination rate, and that’s going down — going the wrong direction," he added. "Where would you rather live? A place that actually believes in science and is sane and where people can work together cohesively to a common goal, or a place where everybody’s at each other’s throats, extremely polarized, turning its back on science and basically would be in utter disarray if another pandemic appears."

Well, turns out, people don't like being told that they're insane. Sure enough, after the first two movies each brought in over $2.3 billion, audiences didn't show up for "Fire and Ash."

Here's how the "Avatar" films performed at the box office, with and without adjustments for inflation:

Domestic box office went from nearly $1.2 billion after adjusting for inflation to just $408 million for "Fire and Ash." That's a disaster, considering the latest film's astronomical $400 million estimated budget. While it still likely turned a profit, it was nowhere close to the level of previous "Avatar" entries. And as a result, Disney has now reportedly told Cameron he doesn't have the carte blanche he once enjoyed.

The Wrap reported this week that Disney executives are demanding budget and running time cuts to the upcoming "Avatar 4" and "Avatar 5" projects, after "Fire and Ash" was such a financial disappointment.

That's as clear a sign as you'll get that Cameron's films, a repetitive lecture on the evils of colonization and climate change, are no longer resonating. It's a clear sign that his decision to criticize everyone living in the most important theatrical market might have been a mistake. He's an arrogant, egotistical, self-obsessed person who's so convinced of his own superiority that he doesn't feel the need to even fake respect for his home country. The home country that gave him the opportunity to be who he is. Now, it's come back to bite him.

Giving him less money and a tighter leash may not entirely come down to politics. But it sure didn't help Cameron's cause. Maybe one day he'll learn something.

Caitlyn Jenner Admits Feeling Like A 'Hypocrite' For Accepting 'Woman Of The Year' Award

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 20:00:31 -0400

Although it seems like a cut-and-dried issue for the majority of American citizens, one debate that won't go away is the idea of males competing in women's sports as long as they "identify" as girls or women. And one of the more interesting voices on that subject is Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner.

Jenner is uniquely qualified to speak on the subject because Bruce Jenner won a gold medal in men's decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, long before Caitlyn was part of the national discourse. But the left-wing activists don't want Jenner contributing to the conversation because Jenner has consistently stated that it's unfair for males to compete in women's sports.

In a wide-ranging interview with OutKick's Tomi Lahren on Tuesday, Jenner admitted that the former athlete now feels like a "hypocrite" because Jenner fights to keep women's sports for females only while previously accepting an award for being "Woman of the Year."

"Here I am fighting the battle to keep biological men out of women's sports because it's not right… And I want to protect women," Jenner said on Tomi Lahren is Fearless. "I started thinking what a hypocrite I am, trying to keep biological men out of women's sports, but I'm a biological man, and they gave me Glamour's Woman of the Year Award."

It's a fascinating revelation from Jenner and a strong moment of self-reflection. It does seem hypocritical for a biological male, which Jenner is, to take the crown of "Woman of the Year" while arguing that other males shouldn't be allowed to steal awards from women. Good on Jenner for recognizing that.

Jenner went on to talk about having surgery to become "female" but acknowledged that doesn't change genetics.

"I'm still XY. Biologically, I'm female. Everything's fixed," Jenner said, referring to gender reassignment surgery. "But genetically, I'm still XY. There's nothing I can do about that. And I'm fine with it. I'm just glad that I can wake up in the morning and just be myself… So I have no regrets about what I did."

But Jenner also admitted that transitioning from Bruce to Caitlyn might have hurt the overall transgender "cause" in the United States.

"We went so far to the left on this issue for the last 30 years [and], unfortunately, I don't think I helped it at all," Jenner said. "When I came out in 2015, I brought this issue forward, but I had nothing but good in my heart. I thought this is a very marginalized group of people [and] I've been dealing with this issue since I was a little kid, and maybe I can make a difference. But unfortunately, the left kind of took my issue."

It's somewhat ironic that Jenner was a hero to the left-wing radicals who love gender ideology back in 2015, but Jenner committed the ultimate sin: endorsing right-wing policies on other issues.

See, that's the thing about the American left-wing: they are incapable of having any dissent. Either you're with them 100% on every issue or you're the enemy.

Therapy Culture Failed Young Men; Sports Didn’t | Jonathan Alpert

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 17:40:55 -0400

Even in defeat Monday night, UConn coach Dan Hurley offered a lesson American culture increasingly avoids: growth requires standards, correction, and the ability to absorb hard truths without collapsing into grievance.

At a moment when so much of the culture teaches young men to interpret discomfort as damage, sports may be the last institution still willing to tell them the truth about maturity.

Watch Hurley pace the sideline, jaw clenched, barking orders before the ball is even inbounded, and you’re watching something increasingly rare in American life: visible standards, public accountability, and the expectation that constructive criticism is the path to growth.

That is the central warning of my forthcoming book, Therapy Nation, and one I see every week in my work as a psychotherapist. A culture that pathologizes discomfort eventually loses the very conditions that lead to growth. Once friction is treated as injury and standards as oppression, people become fluent in explanation but detached from aim. They can describe themselves in detail but grow less certain about what they are supposed to become.

No group feels that loss more strongly than young men.

They are coming of age in a culture saturated with emotional vocabulary but afraid to tell them what adulthood actually demands. They are taught to narrate insecurities, monitor feelings, and talk about themselves with remarkable precision. Some of that matters. But what’s too often missing is a clear standard: discipline, responsibility, competence, resilience, and something worth striving toward.

That’s also why so many young men are drifting toward the manosphere and other blunt male voices. These spaces often prey on male confusion by turning disappointment into grievance, resentment into identity, and cruelty into a false form of strength. They reward suspicion, reduce relationships to power struggles, and sell domination as if it were discipline. Much of it is psychologically toxic. But its appeal points to a failure in mainstream culture: too many young men are still hungry for standards, consequences, and a path toward earned competence, and too few healthy institutions are willing to offer it.

Sports offers the healthier answer to that same hunger. It gives young men something many other institutions no longer reliably provide: a hierarchy they can trust. Effort matters. Results matter. Respect is earned, not granted. In a culture that has grown uncomfortable with rankings, winners and losers, and visible differences in competence, sports still tells the truth that performance has consequences.

In my practice, I often see young men who can describe their feelings in exquisite detail but struggle to name a goal. One college-aged patient came to me after months with another therapist. By then, he had been given a polished vocabulary for every emotion. He could label his anxiety, identify his fear of judgment, and narrate every bit of self-doubt after minor setbacks. What he hadn’t been given was a way forward. The therapy had equipped him with language but no strategy, insight but no direction, a sophisticated way to describe why he felt stuck without any real path out of it. Then he joined a serious boxing gym.

Within weeks, the entire texture of our sessions changed. He stopped obsessing over what every feeling "meant" and started talking about rounds, discipline, showing up on time, and improving. The anxiety didn’t disappear, but it no longer dominated his life. For the first time, he was doing more than monitoring emotion. He was moving forward.

That’s what sports still offers millions of boys and young men: a legitimate path from immaturity to competence.

The weight room, the hours of practice, the endless repetition of drills, and the reality that some players earn the coach’s trust more than others teach what much of the culture now resists: frustration is not trauma, criticism is not rejection, and losing is not a wound to identity.

It gives boys and young men a cleaner script: take the hit, absorb the correction, get better, repeat. The best coaches do what too much of modern culture no longer does: they turn discomfort into growth and discipline into self-respect.

That’s why sports now matters far beyond the field. In a broader culture that now rewards grievance, self-description, and the social reward for displaying injury, sports remains one of the last places where reality pushes back. The pass was either completed or it wasn’t. The lift either went up or it didn’t. You either got stronger or you didn’t.

Young men do not only need language for their feelings. They need direction. Sports may be the one place in American life still willing to give them one.

Study: Star Players Sit Out Majority Of NBA National TV Games

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 16:40:27 -0400

Various metrics suggest the NBA has slipped below both MLB and college basketball in popularity. One reason for the league’s decline is the frequency with which star players sit out nationally televised games.

This week, Yahoo columnist Tom Haberstroh examined how many star players have missed TV games this season. He defined a "star player" as someone with an All-NBA or All-Star appearance in one of the last three seasons. Using that definition, he found that just 32.7 percent of nationally televised games featured a full complement of star players.

"Said another way: About two out of three national TV games will have at least one star player in street clothes," he explained.

Haberstroh also broke down star participation by network, suggesting that players are more likely to play through so-called injuries on ABC than on Peacock.

"According to the Yahoo Sports study, in nine of the exclusively Peacock non-NBC games with stars on both sides, only one featured all the stars, a full-star percentage of 11 percent. But for ABC games, which are on Disney’s biggest network platform, the full-star percentage checked in at 43 percent, more than triple that of Peacock. ABC’s full-star percentage was the highest of the channels," Haberstroh reported.

Awful Announcing added in a follow-up report that only one of the NBA’s top 25 scorers this season has played in every game: Minnesota Timberwolves forward Julius Randle. Only four others have even crossed the 70-game mark: Kevin Durant, Jamal Murray, Jalen Brunson, and Brandon Ingram.

Worse, teams often wait until shootaround to announce the absence of star players, long after fans have already purchased tickets. In the process, the NBA has effectively disincentivized buying tickets early.

This trend comes as the NBA asks fans to pay more to watch regular-season games. Under the league’s new 11-year broadcast agreements, games now air on ESPN, NBC, Peacock, and Amazon Prime, with the latter two requiring paid monthly subscriptions in addition to cable.

Injuries are unavoidable in any sport. But there is a difference between legitimate injury and choosing to rest for minor aches because the game carries little importance.

According to Haberstroh, star availability has dropped from about 80 percent last season to around 60 percent this year.

"Chances are, if you want to watch the big game, and you actually want to see all the stars playing, you won’t be in luck," he added.

The NBA does not have an injury problem. It has a participation problem. Players do not value the regular season because 20 teams now reach postseason play through the Play-in Tournament. Further, rest is more of a competitive advantage than seeding entering the playoffs.

Put bluntly, the NBA is asking fans to pay to watch games, in person and at home, that star players do not consider important enough to play.

And fans have responded by watching and attending less, while other sports organizations thrive.

Tough Coaching Isn’t The Problem; Soft America Is | Kathy Taylor

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 14:20:21 -0400

Brenda Frese grabbed her player…by the moment. That’s what happened last week when the Maryland women’s basketball coach got inches from guard Oluchi Okananwa’s face during the NCAA Tournament, pointed at the floor, and screamed, "I believe in you."

The internet lost its mind. Half of America clutched its pearls. The other half stood up and cheered. And Okananwa? She didn’t flinch. She didn’t cry. She didn’t file a complaint. She said: "I love to be coached hard, and that’s what she does with me every single day."

That’s what greatness sounds like when it comes from someone who actually wants to be great.

This year’s March Madness has been a full-throated, unapologetic reminder that demanding coaching works.

Connecticut's Danny Hurley coaches like his head might detach on live television. Charles Barkley praised Michigan State's Tom Izzo as "one of the few coaches who can still yell at his players" and pointed out the hand-wringers in the media "don’t know anything about sports because they never played."

Izzo once told reporters he would not apologize for his intensity, adding, "That’s the American way, except America has gotten soft." Rick Pitino once told his St. John’s players at halftime, "Your whole life's going to be adversity. Learn how to f--ing deal with it."

Hurley’s UConn team just stormed into the Final Four. Izzo and Pitino went down swinging in the Sweet 16. The outcomes varied. The coaching didn’t.

As Kirsten Fleming wrote in the New York Post this week, these coaches are not "gratuitously yelling." They are "developing young men and young champions." She’s right. But I’ve been coaching young women with that same philosophy for 30 years, and I can tell you exactly what’s at stake.

The Frese clip should not have been controversial. A Hall of Fame coach, the winningest in Maryland history, believed so deeply in her player that she got in her face and demanded she rise to the moment. That is not toxicity. That is love with a deadline. That is a coach who refuses to let you be less than what she knows you can be.

But somewhere over the last decade, a loud minority decided that discomfort is danger. That being challenged is being harmed. That a raised voice is a raised fist. Gentle parenting crept off the playground and onto the sideline. Everyone got a participation trophy, and the kids who actually wanted to win were left wondering why their coach wasn’t allowed to coach anymore.

Here is the truth nobody wants to say out loud: not every athlete is cut out for elite competition. That is not a moral failing. It is a reality. Division I athletics demands a level of physical and mental commitment that is genuinely hard. Early mornings. Brutal conditioning. Being told you’re not working hard enough when you think you’re giving everything. That is the deal. You can transfer. You can quit. You can find a program that fits you better. What you cannot do is demand that the coach lower the standard to match your comfort level and then call it abuse when she won’t.

I have lived this. For three decades, I coached at every level: high school state championships, three consecutive NCAA Final Fours, a National Championship. I coached the same way Frese coaches, the same way Izzo coaches.

I know firsthand what happens when demanding coaching gets called something it isn't. A former player accused me of abuse. I was told not to speak, and I listened — because I wanted to protect my players, my staff, and the program I cared about. I believed the truth would be enough. I was wrong. My university investigated for five months, interviewed more than 30 people, cleared me, and extended my contract. Not a single outlet reported that. The allegations were reprinted as fact, over and over, while no one ever picked up the phone to ask me for my side. I am done being silent about it.

Nearly 50 of my former players have come forward publicly to say my coaching changed their lives. They are military officers, corporate executives, Division I coaches, educators, and mothers who credit what they learned on my field with preparing them for everything that came after. One of them, U.S. Army Major Jordan Miller, who has served multiple combat deployments, said the military distinguishes between toxic leadership and demanding leadership, and called my coaching the gold standard of the latter.

That distinction matters. It is the distinction our culture is losing.

And the women coaches face something the men rarely do. When Izzo screams, he is "passionate." When Pitino erupts, he is "fiery." When a woman coach does the exact same thing, the first question is whether she’s "abusive." Frese shouldn’t have to justify getting in her player’s face. She earned that right. Okananwa confirmed it herself. The pearl-clutching came from people who have never competed at that level and have no idea what it takes.

The real crisis in coaching is not that coaches are too tough. It is that we are stripping coaches of the tools they need to develop young people. We want championships but not the conditioning it takes to win them. We want mentally tough athletes but recoil when a coach builds that toughness. One of my former players, Nicole Bello, said it perfectly: "Everyone wants to be the best, and play with the best, but many don’t understand the level of discipline and hard work it takes. How can you groan about the early morning practices but fantasize about the confetti, the trophies, and the rings?"

So to every coach out there who has been told to "tone it down." Who has been second-guessed by an administrator caving to a parent complaint. Who has watched a player leave because the standard was too high and then had to read online that it was somehow your fault. I see you. I have lived it. Do not stop coaching.

The athletes who want to be great are looking for you. They are the Oluchi Okananwas of the world, the ones who hear a coach screaming in their face and hear exactly what she’s really saying: I believe in you.

Don’t you dare whisper it.

Tiger Woods And America’s Addiction To Excuses | Jonathan Alpert

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:40:42 -0400

Tiger Woods keeps getting the same luxury modern America now offers almost everyone: an endless supply of explanations that make accountability feel optional.

The real story now isn’t the crash itself, the latest public setback, or even the details of what happened this time. It’s how quickly the conversation moves away from the behavior and toward the explanation. Pain. Pressure. Injury. Fame. The physical toll of a legendary career. Some of that may be true. But the reflex is what matters. We no longer use explanation to understand behavior. We use it to soften judgment.

Tiger has become one of the clearest public symbols of a broader American habit: using explanation to delay accountability. Every new incident gets folded into the same familiar comeback mythology, where the setback itself matters less than the promise of return. The facts become secondary to the narrative built around them. At some point, the comeback story stops being hopeful and starts functioning as protection.

As a practicing psychotherapist, I see the private version of this same reflex constantly, and my own profession has helped normalize it. What begins as understanding can easily substitute for standards, confrontation, and change. It’s also a theme I explore in my forthcoming book, Therapy Nation. Patients can often describe destructive patterns with extraordinary insight. They know exactly what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and how it keeps sabotaging their lives. But insight alone changes nothing. Sometimes the explanation itself becomes the permission slip. Saying the right words can create the illusion that progress has already happened, even while the underlying behavior remains untouched.

That logic has now moved far beyond the therapy office. It shapes media coverage, celebrity culture, politics, and everyday life. We have become quicker to interpret than to judge, more comfortable naming wounds than naming behavior. Once a pattern is wrapped in a sympathetic narrative, it becomes harder to call it what it is. Repetition starts to look temporary. Consequences begin to feel like obstacles on the road to redemption.

This is bigger than Tiger. He simply makes the cultural pattern unusually visible. America increasingly prefers explanations that preserve emotional comfort over truths that demand moral clarity. What used to be called a bad decision now gets re-framed as a struggle. What once registered as a repeated mistake becomes part of a healing journey. The language sounds humane, and sometimes it is. But it also creates a cultural blind spot where blunt judgment starts to feel almost impolite.

That shift has changed how we judge public figures. The more comfortable we become explaining behavior, the harder it is to hold clear standards. What happened starts to matter less than how powerful the surrounding narrative feels. Legacy, charisma, and public affection begin to bend judgment. A repeated pattern gets absorbed into the same familiar script: struggle, resilience, and another inevitable comeback.

That is why Tiger still resonates so powerfully as a public figure. He doesn’t just represent athletic greatness or personal decline. He represents a culture increasingly uncomfortable with blunt judgment. We prefer narratives that preserve hope, possibility, and comeback, even when the evidence points toward something far less flattering.

There is always room for second chances. But they only mean something after a real reckoning. When the comeback story shows up before the hard confrontation with reality, it stops being hopeful and becomes protection. The language of growth turns into a way of shielding someone from the full weight of consequences.

That may be the deeper lesson in the endless Tiger cycle. At some point, explanation stops clarifying behavior and starts protecting it. Once a culture loses the ability to distinguish between understanding and excuse, accountability stops being a principle and starts becoming a mood.

Jonathan Alpert is a psychotherapist in New York City and Washington, DC, and author of the forthcoming book "Therapy Nation." X: @JonathanAlpert

Pharmaceutical Giant Pfizer Forced To Shut Down Updated COVID Vaccine Trials

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 17:00:44 -0400

My how the tables have turned.

It wasn't long ago that Pfizer was viewed and praised as the savior of humanity. Including by their own CEO, Albert Bourla. Just four and a half years ago, governments, politicians, educational institutions and corporations mandated that employees, students, or even those simply entering offices or facilities receive COVID vaccines.

These policies were created with the help of experts who treated Pfizer's every word as inarguable law. Despite the pharmaceutical giant sharing spurious conclusions about the efficacy of its vaccine, such as claiming it was "100% effective" in preventing COVID-19 cases. Potential side effects were dismissed, the obvious lack of risk to younger age groups was ignored, downplayed, or outright lied about, and the lack of evidence about infection or transmission was covered up.

Instead of an honest discussion, it became good guys vs. bad guys. Good guys support science and COVID vaccines, bad guys don't. Even more frustrating, as it became clear that Pfizer had wildly oversold its products, that not only was there nowhere near 100% efficacy in preventing COVID cases, but that reality was much closer to 0%, experts and politicians dug their heels in.

Then the rapid spread of the Omicron variant effectively ended the pandemic, as everyone, vaccinated, masked and boosted or not, got COVID in a matter of months. And it seems like years of making unjustified claims have finally come back to bite them.

Reuters reported this week that Pfizer and partner BioN Tech have stopped a "large U.S. trial of their updated COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults aged 50 to 64."

Why? In part, because there were too few people interested in enrolling to create enough data to find conclusions about efficacy. Essentially, nobody wanted to sign up for the trial, because after years of misleading information, a substantial majority of people have finally realized that the promises of yearly updated COVID-19 vaccines is completely unnecessary for healthy, low-risk individuals.

Pfizer reportedly sent a letter out to trial investigators this week revealing that they would "stop surveillance for signs of COVID illness for all participants in the study after April 3."

There's little question that this is a result of health officials in the second Trump administration demanding a higher standard of evidence to approve COVID vaccines. The FDA, under new head Dr. Marty Makaray, specifically required larger trials in the 50-64 age group, as well as placebo controls, for any updated COVID shots. That meant Pfizer needed to enroll 25,000-30,000 participants, a target that they were unable to reach, per Reuters.

"This study is not ending as a result of any safety or benefit-risk concerns. We intend to stop the study due to slow enrollment and therefore the inability to generate relevant post-marketing data," said Pfizer and BioN Tech in a statement to Reuters.

There are simply not enough healthy people in the 50-64 age group willing to enroll themselves in a trial for COVID vaccines, because they've learned that the risk from COVID were made out to be unnecessarily extreme, while the benefits of the mRNA shots were unjustifiably promoted.

Just 18% of Americans got a COVID booster dose for the 2025-2026 respiratory virus season, though these same experts have continued to push for universal uptake. Ironically, years of Anthony Fauci and Bourla working hand in hand seems to have backfired. And now their golden goose is not likely to be available at all for healthy 50-64 year olds in the coming 2026-2027 season. Why? Because nobody wants it.

'Project Hail Mary' Author Says Avoiding 'Crappy Identity Politics' Is Reason For Film's Huge Success

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 19:30:03 -0400

The last several years for Hollywood have generally been a disaster. Production has dried up in Los Angeles, as studios chase lower costs in other countries or locations.

High profile blockbusters have flopped, like Disney's "Snow White," or disappointed relative to expectations, like "Avatar: Fire and Ash." "The Marvels" in 2023 was one of the biggest money-losing films in entertainment industry history. This year, "The Bride!," made because director Maggie Gyllenhaal was upset about the election of President Donald Trump and wanted to prioritize feminist stories, was yet another massive financial disaster. Not every big budget film that's failed has incorporated politics or identity-driven storytelling, but plenty of them have.

One film that avoided politics entirely? "Project Hail Mary" starring Ryan Gosling. A film based on a book from author Andy Weir, who also wrote "The Martian," "Project Hail Mary" has become a runaway box office success.

Through just 10 days of box office, the space-set film has grossed a whopping $170 million at the domestic box office, and $153 million at the international box office. Even more impressive, and indicative of the quality of the film and most importantly, word of mouth, it dropped just 32.8% in its second weekend in theaters. By contrast, "The Bride!" dropped over 70% in its second weekend.

There are plenty of reasons and explanations for this, but one of the most obvious: "Project Hail Mary" was entertainment, not politics. And the book's author did that on purpose.

Author Andy Weir joined popular YouTube film and culture critic The Critical Drinker, aka Will Jordan, to talk about the film and his goal with the story. Jordan said that from the outside, the film was so good and well-received in part because it avoided the "crappy identity politics" taking over Hollywood.

"For me, it's a great example of what you can do now with movies," Jordan said. "If you're faithful to the source material, and you don't insult the intelligence of your audience, and give them something really interesting to grapple with, and you know, dare I say it, [don’t] try and shove, like, crappy identity politics into it, you end up with a g***** good movie at the end of it that the people just want to watch."

Weir immediately agreed, saying that's a purposeful decision he's made.

"I think you and me are kind of on the same wavelength there when it comes to fiction writing," he explained. "I never put any politics or messaging in any of my stories at all. There's no deeper meaning; there isn't even any symbolism, even non-political. There's just no symbolism at all. My books are just purely to entertain."

He continued, showing he's familiar with Jordan's work, saying, "You don't have to worry about ‘the message.'"

How refreshing is that to hear?

Believe it or not, a vast, overwhelming majority of potential moviegoers do not want to spend $15-20 on a movie ticket, plus popcorn, drinks or snacks, and get an eye-rolling lecture filled with "identity politics" and divisive ideology. What the industry has forgotten is that their job is to entertain. It's a leisure activity, not a requirement. It's a product, a consumer-based product, that they need to sell to potential "buyers."

This is how you do it, not by injecting identity and "the message" where it doesn't belong, but by focusing on story, character, and execution. That's the lesson Hollywood needs to learn from "Project Hail Mary." We'll see if they do.

Hollywood Disaster: Jobs Crater By 30% As LA's Entertainment Industry Destroys Itself With Politics

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 17:00:05 -0400

The entertainment industry has, for decades, been the driver of the Los Angeles economy. But after years of self-inflicted wounds driven by Hollywood's own incompetence, ego, arrogance, and the politicization of their films and content, a new report has revealed that there are concerning signs that jobs and careers in LA's signature industry are drying up.

The Wall Street Journal published a story this week about the concerning trends in Los Angeles, and just how drastic entertainment industry cuts have become.

While the first few decades in Hollywood saw films shot almost exclusively in sound stages or locations in Southern California, other states and countries have been more aggressive with incentives and tax cuts to move productions, movies, and offices out of LA. Noah Wyle, called it "a near cratering of our once thriving industry" in recent witness testimony.

And the actual numbers on employment are even worse.

Since late 2022, the US Labor Department estimates that there's been a 30% drop in employment for the professions responsible for actually making and producing films and television. And it's creating concerns that LA is on its way to becoming the next Detroit, a town that saw its most important industry decline.

As the Journal writes, "The nightmare scenario is playing out in Los Angeles, where a century-old entertainment economy is evaporating with no signs of a turnaround on the horizon. Many worry Hollywood will soon resemble Detroit after the decline of the auto industry, with corporate headquarters still located here, but little of the actual work."

Instead, movies and shows are being filmed in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, where tax incentive programs can provide a 50% discount on production costs. As well as cheaper labor costs in places like Hungary.

The Journal found that on-location television production days in Los Angeles went from 18,560 in 2021 to 6,582 in 2025.

So why did this happen? Well, ironically, despite their left-wing ideology, entertainment executives are the most capitalist members of society. Instead of helping employees and locals in LA, they chase wherever they can save money. If it sounds hypocritical, it's because it is.

Studios also gave control of the creative process over to ideologues, who view political activism as their calling, not quality storytelling. Unsurprisingly, it hasn't worked. Box office revenues have plummeted, leading to fewer movies starting production. Streaming shows, once viewed as the savior of the industry, have also declined, as audiences tuned out of atrocious projects like "She-Hulk," "The Acolyte," and "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy."

Put it all together, and LA has the largest population loss of any county in the country.

It's just one of many problems that the industry has inflicted upon itself. Hypocrisy, politicization, activism, and short-sighted policy. And LA, while it might never be Detroit because of other advantages such as weather and recreational opportunity, it may not be that far off. A stunning outcome considering where it was not too long ago.

Meet The Man Fighting To Protect Your Right To Hunt And Fish

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 16:00:20 -0400

When it comes to hunting and conservation, Travis Thompson is on the front lines.

The fifth-generation Floridian and executive director of All Florida was a key architect behind Florida's Amendment 2, the constitutional amendment that enshrines the right to hunt and fish in the state.

And if you think that sounds unnecessary in a place like Florida — where fishing is a monster industry — Thompson would strongly disagree.

"I don't know how else to say it, other than you have to protect the things you care about," Thompson told OutKick Outdoors. "I lock my door every night because this is where the people that I care about, the things I care about, are. It’s not because I’m getting robbed. It's because I don't ever want to be robbed."

That proactive mindset is exactly what drove the push for Amendment 2, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in Florida.

In our interview this week, Thompson walks through how the amendment came together, from being told "there's no way you can get this done" to ultimately building a grassroots coalition of hunters, anglers and outdoor advocates that pushed it across the finish line.

But the conversation goes well beyond Florida.

We also get into:

"We know that anti-hunters are coming. We know that gun control people are coming," Thompson said. "So what we want is to ensure that when they get here, we've got a backstop."

The full interview dives deeper into all of that, including what the future of hunting, fishing and even food itself could look like in the next 50 to 100 years.

Got a suggestion for an OutKick Outdoors guest? Email me at Amber.Harding@outkick.com and let me know!

Right or Wrong, Jaden Ivey Wasn't Good Enough To Challenge The NBA's Pride

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:35:11 -0400

Right or wrong, Jaden Ivey isn’t a good enough player to push a message that the NBA doesn’t support.

Read that again.

The Chicago Bulls would not have cut him if he had ranted against Donald Trump’s supposed dictatorial aspirations, or if he had posted "No Kings." They also wouldn’t have cut him for opposing Pride Month on religious grounds if he were a star player.

Ivey was averaging just 8.5 points per game this season. That’s not enough production to challenge the league’s messaging and become a distraction, as the team viewed him.

For background, the Bulls released the 24-year-old guard on Monday after posting a video calling the NBA "unrighteous" for celebrating Pride Month and citing his Christian faith.

"They’re liars, bro. This is lying," Ivey said during an Instagram Live after his release. "They’re lying saying my conduct is detrimental to the team. That’s a lie. Ask any one of them coaches in there, ‘Was I a good teammate?’ All I’m preaching about is Jesus Christ and they waived me. They say I’m crazy, right? I’m psycho."

This is not to say Ivey is entirely wrong. The NBA promotes Pride Month for the same reason much of corporate America does every June. It’s good public relations. However, sexuality is not something employers or leagues should require employees to celebrate.

Moreover, the NBA and its teams' commitment to the LGBT community is disingenuous. Anthony Edwards used homophobic slurs in a 2022 video and the NBA is actively trying to position him as the face of the league. Kevin Durant used homophobic and racial slurs in a public exchange with Michael Rapaport and was fined just $50,000.

In professional sports, consequences are not applied evenly. They never have been. The one clear exception to this rule is Kyrie Irving, whom the Brooklyn Nets suspended in 2022 for eight games after he shared a link to a film containing antisemitic material. In that case, the response was amplified by outside pressure, including Nike suspending its relationship with Irving.

In general, production dictates tolerance.

Colin Kaepernick’s exit from the NFL is often framed purely as a response to his national anthem protests. However, his level of play also mattered. The 49ers had already benched him for Blaine Gabbert before the protests began. Kaepernick wasn't performing well enough to cost the NFL popularity, as polls found his actions did.

Last year, Ravens kicker Justin Tucker faced a series of unproven sexual harassment allegations. The Ravens released him afterward, likely ending his career. At 36 and coming off a down season, the rest of the league decided he wasn’t worth the potential distraction, regardless of guilt.

Contrast that with Deshaun Watson, who faced more serious allegations and still received a fully guaranteed contract shortly after. The difference was age and position. Watson was a 26-year-old viewed, albeit erroneously, as a franchise quarterback.

We don’t say this to defend professional sports leagues. These standards create an environment in which players are uniquely vulnerable to unproven allegations. Consider former Dodgers pitcher Trevor Bauer. Sexual assault allegations derailed his career, even as later developments raised questions about the claims, costing him prime years he can never recover.

This is, nonetheless, the reality for professional athletes.

It’s also understandable why other athletes viewed Ivey's release as an attack on Christianity. As the most widely practiced religion in the United States, Christianity often becomes part of broader cultural and political conflicts, including in spaces where the NBA has aligned itself on social issues.

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," New England Patriots running back TreVeyon Henderson posted, quoting Matthew 5:10.

"Jesus Christ is King," added Packers tight end Tucker Kraft.

No league in America values the hierarchy of victimhood more than the NBA, in which the gay community sits far higher than Christians.

Still, a role player with limited production and prior off-court concerns, including publicly discussing "abusing" his wife, had little margin for controversy.

If a team believes Ivey can contribute on the court next season, his career will continue. If not, his comments about Pride Month could end his career.