Ben Terris’s May 2 New York Magazine piece, “The Power Trip,” about Senator John Fetterman represents a concerning example of how reporting on public figures can cross ethical boundaries. The article demonstrates a pattern prevalent in political media: targeting individuals who challenge institutional norms, regardless of their ideological position.
As a forensic accountant and fraud investigator who has examined corporate and governmental accountability for years, I’ve observed concerning patterns in how media treats those who challenge institutional power. Despite being a registered Democrat myself, my accountability work has resulted in being mislabeled a “MAGA supporter” – a familiar tactic used against Fetterman and others who break from expected positions.
This analysis examines how media coverage systematically discredits political independence rather than engaging with substantive positions. The approach transcends partisan lines, affecting figures across the political spectrum who challenge consensus views.
The Media Playbook: Three Tactics That Cross Political Lines
The methods evident in the Fetterman profile follow a recognizable pattern that appears designed to diminish the credibility of those who challenge established institutions:
Pathologize the Person, Ignore the Evidence
Terris’s article transforms Fetterman’s post-stroke depression—a condition affecting 20-40% of stroke survivors—into evidence of unfitness. Medical context is deliberately omitted, with research showing that 53% of patients experience persistent symptoms requiring ongoing treatment. According to the American Heart Association’s Scientific Statement on post-stroke depression, “PSD is common, affecting approximately one third of stroke survivors at any one time after stroke.”
The article extensively details Fetterman’s hospitalization but barely acknowledges his successful completion of treatment and ongoing recovery. Standard journalistic balance would demand equal attention to both. The AHA further notes that “antidepressant treatment after stroke can improve both mental health outcomes and physical recovery”—yet Terris portrays Fetterman’s need for continued care as unusual when it aligns perfectly with typical recovery patterns.
This same technique is deployed against whistleblowers and investigators who challenge power: pathologize their persistence rather than addressing their evidence. It’s far easier to psychoanalyze someone than to engage with their legitimate challenges to established power.
Anonymous Whispers Over Documented Facts
Terris builds his case primarily on a disgruntled ex-staffer (Adam Jentleson) and unnamed “former staffers” whose claims are treated as unimpeachable. The timeline inconsistency is glaring: Jentleson had already stepped down as chief of staff in February 2024 but remained on the payroll as an adviser when he wrote his alarming letter in May 2024. If he truly believed Fetterman was in “imminent danger” and “won’t be with us for much longer,” why continue as a paid adviser? And why wait nearly a year before making these concerns public in Terris’s May 2025 article?
Even more damning, Fetterman’s wife directly disputes Jentleson’s credibility, stating that he “fed her scary, untrue stories” that doctors themselves refuted. The article quickly brushes aside direct contradictions from current Senate colleagues Welch and Britt, who report observing no concerning behavior whatsoever—a direct contradiction to the article’s central premise.
Congressman Ritchie Torres recognized this pattern immediately, stating: “I know a hit piece when I see one. The only reason for the coordinated campaign against Senator John Fetterman is his unapologetic pro-Israel politics. Let’s call it what it is.”
This selective promotion of anonymous criticism while minimizing documented positive evidence reflects a broader pattern in accountability journalism. When sources challenge establishment figures aligned with mainstream positions, their credibility is often questioned. When similar sources criticize figures who challenge institutional consensus, they frequently receive less scrutiny.
Label Them to Silence Them
Terris pathologizes Fetterman’s political independence—his support for Israel, meeting with Trump, and breaks from progressive orthodoxy—as symptoms of mental instability rather than legitimate political calculations: The qualities that made Fetterman appealing to Pennsylvania voters—his bluntness, informality, working-class sensibilities—are recast as concerning behaviors.
Similarly, forensic investigators and whistleblowers examining institutional accountability often experience characterizations that frame their work in partisan terms, regardless of their documented history of non-partisan oversight. My own investigation of New York State Attorney General Letitia James’ history of false mortgages and financial disclosures resulted in being labeled a “MAGA supporter” despite being a registered Democrat with a consistent record of investigating financial improprieties across political affiliations. This categorization technique serves to redirect focus from substantive findings to questions about motivation.
The Media’s Fetterman Coverage Is Part of a Pattern
This isn’t the first time Terris has deployed these tactics. As a Washington Post reporter before joining New York Magazine, he established a documented pattern of profiles that pathologize political figures who challenge institutional consensus:
- In a 2015 profile, Terris characterized then-presidential candidate Rick Perry as a “zombie” “specimen” who “ambles” and “lurches,” focusing on appearance and mannerisms rather than substantive positions.
- His profile of Senator James Inhofe repeatedly labeled him as a “climate-change denier” and described him as “a doddering caricature of conservative values.”
- By contrast, profiles of figures aligned with establishment positions received notably sympathetic treatment—his piece on Senator Sherrod Brown described the Democrat as having “smiling eyes and a good head of hair” while presenting him as presidential material.
The consistency of this approach—across subjects from different political parties—reveals a concerning pattern that transcends partisan politics: figures who challenge institutional consensus are systematically discredited through pathologization rather than substantive engagement.
The Ethics Violation That Should Concern Everyone
The most disturbing aspect of Terris’s piece is how it violates established journalistic standards for reporting on health issues. The Association of Health Care Journalists’ Statement of Principles emphasizes that “journalists have a special responsibility in covering health and medical news” and must provide “diverse viewpoints in context.”
Instead, Terris engages in amateur diagnosis, throwing around clinical terms like “manic,” “delusions,” and “psychosis” without medical qualification. The article extensively quotes from supposedly confidential medical communications—information protected by medical privacy laws and ethical journalism standards. These details appear selectively curated to support a negative narrative.
Congressman Torres, who has personal experience with mental health challenges, pointed out the hypocrisy: “As someone who has struggled with depression my whole adult life, I can tell you that if you truly care about someone’s mental health, leaking hit pieces against them is a strange way of showing it.”
This approach isn’t just sloppy journalism—it’s a calculated technique that mental health reporting guidelines explicitly warn against. The article contains zero input from neurologists, psychiatrists, or stroke recovery specialists who could contextualize post-stroke depression and recovery. Why? Because medical expertise would contradict the sensationalized narrative.
The journalistic failure is further compounded by the article’s voyeuristic quality. Emotional conversations between Fetterman and his wife, private medical records, and confidential doctor communications are exposed in detail. This selective violation of privacy norms would never be tolerated for establishment-friendly politicians.
Why This Matters Beyond Fetterman
The journalistic approaches examined in this analysis are not isolated to any particular case. They represent patterns that should concern all who value accountability and transparency in democratic institutions, regardless of political affiliation.
A more balanced article about Fetterman would likely have included:
- Medical context from qualified experts about post-stroke depression
- Analysis of his legislative record and actual performance as a senator
- Equal time for current staff and more Senate colleagues
- Substantive exploration of his positions rather than armchair psychology
My concern with these media tactics extends beyond professional interest. Living with OCD and having developed PTSD and depression following the devastating loss of two of my three sons, I understand firsthand how damaging irresponsible coverage of mental health can be. When journalists weaponize health conditions to discredit those who don’t conform, they don’t just harm public figures—they reinforce stigma affecting millions of Americans with similar challenges.
Investigative journalism that examines accountability in public institutions serves an essential function in democratic governance. How media organizations approach this work—particularly regarding those who challenge consensus positions—warrants careful analysis and consistent standards.
The approach demonstrated in coverage of Senator Fetterman illustrates broader questions about media treatment of public figures who operate outside institutional norms. This isn’t fundamentally about mental health or performance—it’s about how journalism approaches independence and dissent in public discourse. These standards affect how information flows through democratic systems and ultimately shapes public understanding of policy choices.
Written by,
Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.