OPINION:
Taken together, parts one and two of “Vanity Hit”’s Susie Wiles profile are not journalism. They are a case study in how legacy media manufactures menace — by stitching conjecture to caricature, insinuation to innuendo, and then calling the resulting collage an “exclusive.”
What Vanity Hit delivers across these two installments is not an investigation grounded in evidence, but a prolonged exercise in narrative escalation that is irresponsible, misleading and dangerous.
The method is consistent from the opening line to the final paragraph. The reader is primed to fear before being asked to think. “Power and peril” is not a neutral frame; it is a verdict rendered in advance. From there, the pieces deploy a familiar arsenal: adjectives standing in for proof (“brutal,” “sketchy,” “chaotic”), anonymous consensus replacing sourcing (“many have called,” “critics say”) and hypotheticals elevated to headline status. This is not how facts are established. It is how outrage is curated.
Across both parts, Vanity Hit repeatedly insinuates illegality without doing the work of demonstration. Immigration enforcement is described in language designed to shock — “snatching,” “brutal,” “despite court orders” — without case files, warrants, docket numbers, timelines or chains of command. If there was court defiance, cite the order. If there were violations, show the remedy. Instead, readers are offered a mood, not a record. That approach does not inform; it inflames.
The most reckless choice is the flirtation with accusations of war crimes. Both pieces lean into overheated rhetoric about interdictions and lethal force, quoting second-hand claims and then retreating behind journalistic hedges (“possible” and “many have called”). That is not caution; it is evasion. Allegations of war crimes carry extraordinary moral and legal gravity. To air them without adjudication, evidence or authoritative findings is not courage. It is negligence.
Equally corrosive is the casual use of historically incendiary analogies. Reichstag imagery, authoritarian tropes and “guardrails of democracy” language are deployed not to clarify, but to terrify. These analogies collapse context, erase distinctions and act as accelerants. In a polarized society, such rhetoric does not cool tensions; it licenses the belief that ordinary politics is an existential emergency. History teaches where that road leads.
When policy analysis falters, Vanity Hit pivots to personalization. Readers are treated to amateur psychology, gossip and mockery —claims about impulse, stamina, dozing in meetings and tone abroad. These are not arguments. They are shortcuts around evidence. If the policies are wrong, argue the policies. If the outcomes failed, show the data. Instead, authority is delegitimized by ridicule.
The Epstein section in part two of the article is emblematic. There is no new evidence, no finding of wrongdoing, no adjudication. There is only implication by proximity and disappointment by rumor. Optics replace facts. Journalism becomes a parlor game: who appears in a file, who flew where, who feels let down. Suspicion is allowed to linger because it serves the narrative.
Trade policy receives similar treatment. Tariffs are framed as whimsical and chaotic, their effects reduced to market jitters and snarky acronyms. There is no serious engagement with leverage gained, substitution effects, supply-chain relocation or long-run investment. Outcomes are ignored because vibes are more useful to the thesis. That is advocacy, not analysis.
Throughout both pieces, Vanity Hit blurs a crucial distinction: accountability versus retaliation. Lawful criticism of prosecutors, challenges to politicized enforcement and constitutionally protected speech are flattened into a morality play about “retribution.” Motive is asserted without proof; intent is presumed without evidence. This is how political disagreement is converted into moral indictment.
Why does this matter? Because media institutions shape the temperature of public life. When a legacy outlet repeatedly presents conjecture as certainty and frames governance as menace, it corrodes trust and hardens divisions. Words move crowds. Headlines harden grievances. Responsible journalists understand that — and act accordingly.
Real journalism separates allegation from adjudication, rhetoric from record and opinion from proof. It names names, dates dates, cites documents and measures outcomes. Across these two pieces, Vanity Hit does the opposite. It curates a mood, amplifies it with inflammatory language and releases it into an already volatile environment.
This is not a plea for favorable coverage. It is a demand for discipline. Retire the loaded adjectives. Stop laundering accusations through anonymous consensus. Abandon the incendiary analogies. Debate policies on their merits and judge leaders on outcomes, not caricatures.
Vanity Hit chose drama over rigor — twice. In doing so, it prolonged fake news and elevated provocation over proof. At a moment when the country needs clarity and restraint, that choice is not just wrong. It is dangerous.
• Peter Navarro is the senior counselor for trade manufacturing in the Trump White House. www.peternavarro.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.