Issues are brewing at CNN, and Jake Tapper finds himself at the center of it all. Word has it that the network has rolled out a stricter policy regarding its on-air personalities’ ability to promote their own books. This new directive directly affects Tapper, whose 2025 tell-all, “Original Sin,” has drawn both attention and ire for its harsh take on former President Joe Biden and his cognitive struggles.
The controversy surrounding Tapper’s book isn’t just about content; it’s also about airtime. Critics argue that the amount of coverage dedicated to “Original Sin” was excessive, leading to frustration among CNN executives. According to Breaker Media, the updated policy states, “CNN’s editorial platforms are meant to distribute and showcase CNN’s journalism that our audience comes to CNN for… There should be no use of websites, QR codes, or links to drive personal sales.” This appears to be a clear attempt to separate journalism from personal branding, highlighting a struggle over what is appropriate for CNN’s platform.
Tapper, once a leading figure, now appears to be caught in the crosshairs of this new policy. Sources close to the situation reported that he was “very, very unhappy” with the restriction on promoting his own book. It’s said that he gathered other prominent anchors to express their collective frustration to CNN CEO Mark Thompson, though CNN has neither confirmed nor denied this reporting.
However, the new policy also underscores a deeper issue: the perception of Tapper’s actions at the network. Some CNN staffers believe that the policy is a direct response to Tapper’s behavior. An unnamed staffer shared, “I think the policy was made because of him,” adding that “most people saw what he was doing and thought it was nutter butter.” This sentiment suggests that not everyone within CNN is on Tapper’s side regarding his approach to promoting his book.
Amidst the turmoil, “Original Sin” serves as a focal point. Released in May 2025, the book dives into the behind-the-scenes efforts to downplay Biden’s deteriorating mental health as his term wound down. It raises questions not only about the integrity of political discourse but also about the ethics surrounding legal news coverage. Tapper’s decision to tackle such a sensitive topic, combined with the circumstances surrounding its promotion, has led to a divisive atmosphere within the CNN newsroom.
The broader implications of this policy shift may resonate beyond just Tapper. It reflects a struggle within CNN itself over the balance between personal narratives and objective journalism. While Tapper may view his work as a crucial exploration into Biden’s decline, others at the network may see it as a conflict of interest that undermines the credibility of their reporting. As the dust settles, it will be interesting to see how Tapper and other anchors adapt to these new restrictions and what effect it may have on their future output.
"*" indicates required fields
