I don’t consider myself a masochist. Yet every now and then, I still read a New York Times article.
Last week, Vice President Vance delivered a brutally frank speech in Germany, castigating European leaders who’ve continually assaulted the notion of free speech across the continent—arresting people for mild insults and even nullifying an election in Romania over allegations of “misinformation.”
It was serious stuff. Yet in the midst of an article about international politics, the Times just had to remind us: “His first days as a vice-presidential candidate were consumed by his criticism of ‘childless cat ladies.’”
There it was again—that throwaway remark from a 2021 interview, apparently enshrined in the Times’ style guide as mandatory background. Four years later, they’re still clutching those pearls.
Curious about their fixation, I searched their archives. The Times has managed to work that comment into 204 different stories. (Seriously, 204 times.) They’ve squeezed it into political analysis, abortion debates, and opinion pieces—anywhere they could wedge in a reference.
The Times’ creative department worked overtime, exploring every angle. Usha Vance defends him! Former female friends trash him! “JD Vance: Purr-fectly Dreadful.”
But they didn’t stop at journalism-by-keyword. They also tried a cultural counterattack, roping in Eminem to battle Vance’s supposed misogyny, working in the cat quote once again. They sidestepped that the rapper built his career singing about beating women.
The paper also got professorial. One particularly grandiloquent think piece traced “the long history of bias against cosmopolitan cat-owning women” all the way back to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692, complete with a breathless comparison: “as girls were writhing and convulsing their way to persecution.”
And, of course, no media circus is complete without celebrity endorsements. Fading liberal icons learned the formula: invoke the magic phrase and—poof!—a New York Times article. Hello, Candace Bergen! Linda Ronstadt is still relevant! Jennifer Aniston, we see you! It was like a retirement home for progressive stars, with cat ladies as the admission ticket.
Then Taylor Swift, ever the marketing genius, trumped them all by signing her Instagram endorsement of Kamala Harris as “Childless Cat Lady.” That single stroke of social media genius earned her mentions in 21 separate Times stories.
The absurdity hit its peak when the Times dragged Doug Emhoff’s daughter, Ella, into the fray, furiously insisting that Kamala wasn’t really childless: “How can you be ‘childless’ when you have cutie-pie kids like Cole and Ella?”
Kamala nearly had three step-children, of course. In his first marriage, Doug impregnated Ella and Cole’s nanny, spurring his divorce.
How did the Times deal with that scandal? Substantially different.
Turns out, they did do some reporting on the issue. They wrote he had a “previously undisclosed relationship” which ended his marriage, but skipped over the messy nanny and pregnancy angle. Had there only been a cat involved.
The paper’s obsession with Vance’s cat remark is a perfect case study not of journalism, but in politics.
The Times isn’t informing the public; it’s curating a reality where conservatives are always villains and liberals always victims. In this world, a flippant remark from 2021 is a national crisis, but a vice president’s husband impregnating the help? That’s just messy and best left unsaid.
The irony? While they’ve been obsessing over cat ladies, Vance’s popularity has actually grown. Turns out, voters who see him unfiltered by the media’s fog machine find something different: a thoughtful leader tackling serious issues.
Meanwhile, somewhere in Manhattan, an editor is already assigning story number 205.
Ken LaCorte writes about censorship, media malfeasance, uncomfortable questions, and honest insight for people curious how the world really works. Follow Ken on Substack
