As cultural symbols decline, the left seems unable to confront the truth and take responsibility. The situation is rather straightforward: the demand for their increasingly radical views is decreasing. The onus is on them; they have set themselves apart from the American public and then turned around to claim that the public is resisting change.
In typical fashion, the left is sidestepping accountability. They’re unwilling to renounce fallen icons. Instead of reevaluating their beliefs, they elevate these icons to martyr status.
Take Scott Pelley, for example, a former correspondent for CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He criticized one of his superiors by saying she had “murdered” the show, claiming, “She’s not qualified for the job.” He also expressed to others that they were indeed qualified.
This episode made headlines in Page Six’s Hollywood section, which more candidly described it as “’Poison Perry’: Scott Perry’s intense critique of ’60 Minutes’ new boss is the latest instance of ‘diva’ behavior from a respected CBS journalist.”
Pelley went on to tell the New York Times that CBS News has lost its direction, stating, “The people in these roles, through no fault of their own, lack television experience. They don’t know what they’re doing. There’s a subtle political bias that I’ve never seen before on 60 Minutes or CBS News. So, I hope for a return to sanity.”
There’s a grain of truth in his remarks. CBS News has long exhibited a clear political bias, leaning leftward, as shown by various assessments.
His transition to martyrdom adds to a growing list of such figures.
Network news didn’t necessarily harm Scott Pelley; it was functioning relatively well. A Gallup poll from 2025 indicated that only 28% of Americans had significant trust in mainstream media. Additionally, a Pew Research study from February noted that 57% of Americans had low confidence in journalists acting in the public’s best interests.
This context may help clarify the rationale behind the cancellations and extensive rebranding attempts at MSNBC and CNN—media outlets that didn’t fail because the audience suddenly became less intelligent. Instead, they faltered because Americans grasped their messaging all too well.
Hollywood echoes a similar narrative. The recent “Supergirl” film flopped, another reminder of the industry’s propensity for progressive messaging that ultimately misses the mark. Marketing might have been extensive, but it couldn’t mask the shortcomings of the content itself. If the oversaturation of ideology wasn’t enough, the film’s lead actor also alienated potential viewers.
“Supergirl” reflects a larger issue within Hollywood, portraying entertainment as something undervalued. Movies now seem to be more about delivering “higher values” rather than offering pure enjoyment.
In late-night television, Stephen Colbert’s situation underscores this trend; he faced cancellation due to a lack of humor and rising production costs. Paradoxically, the left now holds him up as a champion for opposing former President Trump.
This decline in late-night programming serves as a broader symptom of a cultural issue. It has transformed into another platform for the left to voice its opinions while demanding that the entire nation pay attention.
The same fate has befallen print media, as evidenced by the struggles of the Washington Post. Its readership and revenue have dwindled, resulting in significant layoffs. Much like the landscape of television, the Post mirrors the same pattern: as disdain for its audience grew, so did the decline in readership.
In these instances, the left has consistently turned its fallen icons into martyrs, resisting the crux of reality. In Pelley’s case, the truth is evident—publicly attacking your superior is a display of poor judgment. This should be understood universally, yet the left often believes its figureheads deserve different standards.
In broader terms, the left seems unwilling to face the consequences of various failures. Society isn’t run like a charity; when the audience disengages, the message is unmistakable.
The left resists acknowledging that the market reflects real desires. They prefer a system where regulation can cushion disappointing outcomes, but that can’t change the fact that people won’t endorse products they’ve already rejected.
Furthermore, the left is reluctant to own up to the deterioration of its symbols. As it became increasingly radical, the general public didn’t follow suit. Recognizing this would mean admitting defeat.
In essence, the left elevates its fallen figures to martyrdom as a way to sidestep uncomfortable truths. It’s more convenient than reflecting on why many Americans have distanced themselves from their narratives.
The answer, however, isn’t particularly elusive. As public interest waned, so too did the relevance of these icons.
