9 Out of 10 Reporters Won’t Say “Trans” — Copy-Paste Journalism Reaches New Low

Minneapolis, MN — A Case Study in Media Paralysis

In the wake of the Annunciation Catholic School shooting, America’s leading newsrooms have united — not in courage, not in clarity, but in a solemn vow not to use the word “trans.”

When asked why, reporters offered a mix of excuses usually reserved for late homework and forgotten gym uniforms.

“Well, the Associated Press didn’t say it,” explained one CNN journalist, “so I can’t say it either. I’m basically a human Xerox machine with a press badge.”

Another muttered, “If Reuters jumped off a bridge, I’d jump too. That’s journalism ethics.”

The excuses piled up like abandoned press releases: “My editor didn’t approve it,” “We don’t want to get yelled at on Twitter,” and “Technically, the New York Times already owns that word.”

Thus, the press turned a cultural flashpoint into a game of telephone, where every sentence sounded like it was written by someone who had only skimmed the first article.

The Herd Mentality

Reporters confessed, with surprising candor, that if the original wire story didn’t include the word “trans,” then no one in the media ecosystem feels empowered to break the chain.

• 9 out of 10 journalists admitted they simply rewrote what another journalist wrote, who was rewriting what another journalist wrote, who was rewriting what a PR intern handed out.

• 1 out of 10 did original reporting, but their editor cut it “to maintain tone,” which in newsroom jargon means “don’t get us sued or ratioed.”

The end result was an ouroboros of bland paragraphs: the same cautious language eaten, digested, and regurgitated across 500 outlets, all under different mastheads.

As one Associated Press stringer admitted over beers:

“Honestly, we just copy each other’s homework. The only difference is we don’t get sent to detention — we get promoted to Editor-at-Large.”

Confusion About Motive

Meanwhile, 8 out of 10 journalists claimed they were “perplexed” about why a transgender shooter would target a Catholic church school.

One New York Times columnist wrote, “We may never know the motive — until Netflix makes a documentary in 2043.”

Another MSNBC host wondered aloud: “Could it have been… parking issues? Minneapolis is rough on street parking.”

Others offered even more creative theories:

• CNN floated that it could have been about “misunderstood brunch etiquette.”

• NPR suggested “latent stress caused by irregular oat milk supply chains.”

• USA Today published a think piece arguing the motive might be “the loneliness of Midwestern winters combined with poor Spotify recommendations.”

By refusing to name the elephant in the room, the press transformed a clear cultural conflict into a Hallmark mystery: “Shooter’s Motive? The Christmas Spirit Might Know.”

Satirical Polling

A Bohiney.com survey of 200 reporters found:

• 44% believe the shooter’s motive was “complex and unknowable.”

• 27% think motives are overrated: “Why complicate a good lead paragraph?”

• 19% admitted they were afraid of Twitter backlash if they used the word “trans.”

• 10% said they were too busy at Starbucks to check facts.

In follow-up questions:

• 32% admitted they rely on Wikipedia to fact-check crime stories.

• 16% confessed their “anonymous sources” are just Uber drivers.

• 7% thought “Annunciation” was the name of a new Target store in Minneapolis.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Agnes Nutter, Professor of Media Cowardice at Bemidji State, explained:

“Journalists today operate like nervous high schoolers waiting to see what the cool kid writes before turning in their own essays. It’s copy-paste cowardice dressed up as consensus.”

An anonymous reporter, clutching a half-empty oat latte, added:

“Look, I just mirror the AP style guide. If AP says the sun rises in the west, then dammit, that’s how it rises. I’ve got rent to pay.”

Another insider admitted:

“We don’t report news anymore. We massage it. We aromatherapy it. We gently fold it into the shape of whatever won’t get us screamed at by a blue-checkmark with 12,000 followers.”

The Press Corps at Work

At one press conference, reporters were overheard whispering like high school students before a pop quiz:

• “Are we allowed to say trans? Or do we call it ‘gender-optional incident participant’?”

• “I don’t want to get ratioed online. Better just say the motive is ‘unclear.’”

• “What if we just interview another journalist about what they wrote? That counts as reporting, right?”

Meanwhile, the shooter’s manifesto was reduced to vague euphemisms: “expressed frustration,” “wrote some things online,” “exhibited identity concerns.” In other words: nothing worth reading.

The Fake Newsroom Memo

Leaked documents from one major outlet showed exactly how the sausage is made. The memo, marked “INTERNAL USE ONLY,” read:

Rule 1: Do not use the word “trans.” Approved alternatives: gender-fluid resident, community member, alternative-lifestyle participant, Minnesotan with vibes.

Rule 2: Motive is always “unclear.” If pressed, cite “parking” or “climate anxiety.”

Rule 3: When in doubt, quote another journalist. Circular sourcing is still sourcing.

Rule 4: Our motto: If AP didn’t say it, neither do we.

Anonymous Staffer Confessions

One editor confessed:

“Our newsroom has three golden rules: Don’t get sued, don’t get canceled, and don’t miss happy hour. If that means we write 800 words of filler about ‘complex motives,’ so be it.”

A junior copy editor chimed in:

“Honestly, my entire job is replacing ‘transgender’ with ‘individual.’ My Ctrl+F game is strong. Pulitzer, here I come.”

What the Funny People Are Saying

• “So reporters won’t say ‘trans’? What’s next, they won’t say ‘shooter’ because it sounds too aggressive?” — Jerry Seinfeld

• “Journalism used to be about truth. Now it’s about: ‘What can I write without making Twitter mad at me?’” — Ron White

• “Eight out of ten journalists say they don’t know the motive. That’s just lazy. I don’t know the motive for why my dog licks the couch, but at least I’m curious enough to ask.” — Bill Burr

• “They’re confused about a trans shooter targeting a Catholic school? Oh yeah, must’ve been the weather. Or the vibes. Gotta blame the vibes.” — Sarah Silverman

Absurd Explanations for Motive (Media Style)

A leaked Slack channel among reporters revealed their brainstorming session:

• “Maybe the shooter was mad at the cafeteria food.”

• “Could be unresolved trauma from gym class dodgeball.”

• “We could say it’s systemic inequality… that always sells.”

• “Let’s blame TikTok again. People believe anything if you add TikTok.”

Circular Reporting: Journalism’s Mobius Strip

By Day 3, nearly every major outlet had published an article quoting another outlet, quoting another outlet, quoting the original AP wire. By Day 5, no one remembered who wrote the first draft.

As Dr. Nutter dryly observed:

“Journalism now functions like Wikipedia — but with worse editors and more expensive coffee.”

Closing Punchline

And so, the coverage continues: dozens of articles, none saying the word, all scratching their heads about motive like Scooby-Doo without the reveal.

In the end, America is left with 500 headlines that read exactly the same:

“Shooter’s Identity Complex, Motive Mysterious, Authorities Seeking Answers.”

Which is media code for: “We don’t want to say it, so we won’t — please subscribe.”

Disclaimer

This satire targets the cowardice and laziness of mainstream journalism, not any individual identity. Written in collaboration between the world’s oldest tenured professor and a dairy-farming philosophy major.

Auf Wiedersehen, amigos.

IMAGE GALLERY

The cowardice and laziness of mainstream journalism…