#the objective

"No one knows! We just sorta stopped aging one day, then later we invented nanobots so we can't get hurt. Now we all do random shit to keep busy. Like football."

"Football???"

"It's bad enough being stuck here. I'm not about to traumadump to strangers."

"Oh shut up, you weren't even one of the first candidates."

After a bit of walking, which was surprisingly not much at all, all the kidnapped people had reached the lounge. It was a pretty simple room, all things considered. Everyone found a place to stand, Controlly sitting up on a shelf or something to match the height somewhat.

The PA turned on.

(I'm sorry for doing this so suddenly, you six. First of all... I feel like I should emphasize that I mean no harm. In fact, I aim to help.)

"Likely story," the recently-dubbed Hal scoffed, stance stiff.

(No, it's quite true,) the Narrator insisted. (All of you are currently stuck in some sort of predicament. Stuck on Xen, for some, and for others, lost in a variety of different ways. There is no winning those battles alone.)

Silence fell over the group, for a moment.

"He's right," Gordon agreed after the pause, shrugging. "I can't get out of deep space on my own."

"G-man isn't listening to me," Ozzy grumbled.

"And I can't kill that bastard without help, apparently," Controlly said, the venom in his voice leaving the silence after uncomfortable.

The rest neglected to respond.

(This shouldn't take more than a week,) the Narrator promised. (There are plans to formulate and simulations to run, but generally, my hope is that the more of you agree to help each other and bond, the easier your problems will be to solve.)

Hal squinted up. "But we're stuck here."

(I'm not letting you leave and get hurt without a plan,) the Narrator said, honesty flooring Hal for a moment before he scowled in reaction.

"So, what, we just have to get all buddy-buddy with each other?" Controlly asked, skeptical.

Joshua decided to speak up, too. "Which one of us is going first...?"

(Either Ozzy, Gordon, or Controlly. You all can decide for yourself by listening to each other's stories.)

Having said what it wanted to say, the PA shut off again.

"Graduating high school! Uncle G, my cousin, and my parents were all there. It was really nice, and we went to ice cream afterwards."

"When I was a kid, I made a one-day friend at like... a park. She was just really nice and we found two lucky clovers in the field. I still have mine, actually. It's pressed."

"Watching my Joshua grow up! I'm still really proud of him, even though he looks like my age."

"...I don't know."

"Getting my dog Charlie! She's so sweet and probably the best dog I could ask for. I got her from a shelter with my wife."

"Oh right good idea."

"Mostly emotionally, I'm gonna be honest. But yeah, a little physically too."

Parker Molloy for The Objective:

When Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday attempting to end gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 19, encourage the prosecution of doctors who provide this care, and strip insurance coverage from trans people, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post thought this development warranted a push notification to their readers. This is a clear illustration of how leadership at these outlets’ view of attacks on trans rights: they’re standard political developments rather than acts of state-sponsored discrimination targeting a vulnerable minority. The lack of push notifications might seem like a small thing, but it speaks to these newsrooms’ failure to recognize the gravity of this moment — one that stems directly from these outlets’ inability to see their own role in making it possible. The Times‘ coverage, in particular, demonstrates the paper’s refusal to take accountability for its role in seeding anti-trans sentiment. 

For years, the newsroom has published article after article casting doubt on gender-affirming care, portraying trans healthcare as “controversial” despite overwhelming medical consensus supporting it, and giving ample space to anti-trans activists while rarely quoting trans people themselves. All the while, anti-trans opinion columnists at the paper, such as Pamela Paul, have churned out piece after piece delegitimizing and demeaning trans existence. Tuesday’s coverage continued this pattern — in reporting on an executive order directly impacting trans Americans, the Times didn’t quote a single trans person.

This isn’t an accident or oversight. It’s part of a consistent pattern at the paper that reflects an editorial choice — with material harm given the Times’ role as the U.S. paper of record. As documented in The Flaw’s 2024 investigation of media coverage, the Times‘ reporting has repeatedly been cited by lawmakers and used in legal briefs to justify anti-trans legislation across the country. The paper’s consistent framing of gender-affirming care as “controversial” and “dangerous,” rather than as standard medical care supported by every major medical association, provides intellectual cover for the sweeping restrictions Trump is now attempting to implement nationwide. Even now, with Trump explicitly calling trans healthcare “chemical and surgical mutilation” in official government documents, the Times maintains its stance of faux-neutrality, similar to how its leadership ignored queer Americans during the inception of the AIDS crisis while giving cover to the poor government response. The paper amplifying mainstream anti-trans talking points now acts as though it’s merely documenting the inevitable, rather than watching the seeds it planted bloom into full-blown institutional discrimination.

The Washington Post‘s coverage, while marginally better in including some trans voices, still treats this as just another policy story rather than what it is: an unprecedented attack on the healthcare rights of both trans youth and adults that will put lives at risk. Both papers frame this primarily as follow-up coverage on Trump’s campaign promises rather than a human rights story about state-sponsored discrimination. This is what happens when newsrooms fail to adequately include trans voices, both in coverage and in editorial decision-making.