Objective This study analyzed language found in executive orders (EOs) issued during the first 100 days of the Trump administration (2025) with specific emphasis on how word choice characterized federal and non-federal programs targeted for removal. Method Semantic and thematic analysis examined 36 EOs eliminating programs or freezing funding and the rationale offered for doing this. Findings Sentiment analysis revealed while the orders were predominantly positive, negative emotions focusing on anger, fear, and trust were common. A lexicon of 830 negative words and phrases in these documents was compiled. Four themes illustrating exclusion were identified. Arguments supporting these themes claimed that the 1) border was overrun by illegal immigrants, 2) other countries have taken unfair advantage of America's generosity, 3) diversity, equity, and inclusion is illegal, and 4) biological sex at birth is the legal standard. Conclusion While calling for restoration to a golden age, the overall impact of these orders describes the U.S. as a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

In this essay, I identify and analyze a narrative style found across a range of artifacts in popular culture that I call fantastic autonomy. Based on careful readings of durable, quotidian, and spectacular exemplars, I show how these narratives seduce viewers and ultimately produce a distorted view of capitalist production wherein materials and techniques yield finished products as if by magic, ultimately perpetuating commodity fetishism. Understanding the rhetorical appeal and consequence of such stories tells critical scholars much about the ways that labor is denigrated and, more often, erased in popular culture.

Critical political economy of communication and the media (CPECM) is an approach and field of study that critically analyzes how the interaction of politics and the economy in society shapes and is shaped by (mediated) communication. This study asks: What is the role of methodology in the approach of CPECM? How are methods and media ethics related in the critical study of media, economy, and society? The article argues that CPECM is distinct in that it asks special types of questions that are different from the questions asked by administrative research. This study points out 10 methodological dimensions of CPECM. It argues that empirical ideology critique should not be situated outside but inside of CPECM. It becomes evident that, other than conventional methods in media and communication studies, CPECM methodology is guided by ethics, moral philosophy, and critical theories.

In this 50th year of the Journal of Communication Inquiry , we applaud the editors’ and contributors’ efforts to center the challenges that journalists face in the first quarter of the 21st century. Historically, being a member of the press, whether in the Majority World, in Europe, or the United States, has never been easy. There have been challenges to covering the world since the birth of news media. However, this period, as this issue aptly points out, is different. The challenges are distinct, as are the ways in which journalists are responding to and, in some cases, being resilient in the face of dire constraints.

This article introduces the concept of shared press distress —the emotional and psychological strain of watching, reading, or hearing about a fellow journalist's trauma or distress. Shared press distress does not stem from direct exposure to trauma but rather from the far-reaching ripple effect one journalist's distress can have on others in the profession. This concept is grounded in the lived experience of 19 journalists in Kansas, where police raided a fellow state newspaper. The in-depth interviews revealed emotional and practical responses from the journalists. Emotionally, there was a sense of disbelief as they watched a colleague endure a perceived violation of press freedoms. On the practical side, witnessing a fellow journalist face a perceived retaliatory raid for carrying out the core function of accountability journalism compelled them to reassess themselves, raising difficult questions about the risks of holding the powerful in check. The emotional weight of the experience and the practical reevaluation intertwined, emphasizing the grim reality that if it could happen to one Kansas journalist, it could happen to any of them—an attack not just on one newsroom, but on journalism itself.

This essay critically interrogates how mainstream media constructs and perpetuates binary conceptions of gender, focusing on the broader cultural and societal consequences of these representations. Drawing on queer theory and critical cultural studies, it critiques how entrenched media narratives have historically reinforced rigid gender categories while marginalizing nonbinary and gender-fluid identities. Through selected case studies in film, television, and advertising, the analysis reveals both progressive efforts and persistent barriers in portraying gender diversity. While some texts offer meaningful departures from traditional gender constructs, many continue to exhibit superficial inclusivity or reinforce stereotypes. The essay argues for a paradigm shift in media practices, advocating for inclusive storytelling, restructuring creative leadership to amplify diverse voices, and promoting critical media literacy. Reimagining gender beyond the binary is not only a scholarly concern, but a necessary social imperative for fostering equity, visibility, and dignity for all identities.