Flip-Flops Aren't Just For Summer: The Many Rebrands of House Inhabit
An algorithm-chasing identity crisis unfolding right in front of us. But how can the audience not see it? Or do they just not want to?
Jessica Reed Kraus (here we go, again) has been many things online:
a west coast boho liberal, a free-spirited truth-seeker, a courtroom correspondent, a pop culture investigator, and now, apparently, a born-again Christian quoting scripture between gossip posts…??
According to her, these pivots are just “evolution.”
A natural unfolding.
A woman changing her mind in public — which is totally okay!!
Unless you’re doing it as part of a grift.
Because this doesn’t feel like thoughtful growth….It feels like a woman floundering to keep the audience she still has.
And the wild part?
It’s becoming her entire MO.
This isn’t a one-off — it’s a pattern.
A rinse-and-repeat formula of vague conviction, aesthetic pivots, and emotionally charged storytelling repackaged as “truth.”
Let’s start with the Diddy trial.
Jessica posted in her Instagram Stories that she WOULD NOT be covering the trial.
She said she was tired. That it didn’t interest her. That she’d rather spend her time with the Navy during Fleet Week than get involved in the media circus. She framed the decision as noble. Detached. Almost enlightened.
And then — literally the next day — she said she WOULD be covering the Diddy trial after all. No explanation, no context, no accountability. Just… surprise! We’re doing this now.
Now, if she had said, “I’ve had a change of heart. A lot of you messaged me asking for coverage, and I want to do this justice,” that would’ve been something.
Listening to your audience? Great.
Following where the story leads you? Cool.
But that’s not what happened.
She acted like it was beneath her. Then pivoted the second the engagement potential became clear.
That kind of flip doesn’t signal conviction — it signals performance.
She’s not following the truth. She’s following the clicks. And when that’s your compass, your work isn’t journalism. It’s content with a costume.
Which brings us to the other costume—RELIGION.
Jessica used to identify as spiritual-but-not-religious. You know the vibe — crystals, astrology, intuitive downloads.
Now?
She’s quoting Bible verses, referencing Hillsdale College, and sharing papal memes with her face superimposed on religious The Pope.
One week she says she’s never read the Bible.
The next, she’s doing Instagram theology and calling it “Holy House Inhabit.”
And again — personal faith journeys?
Totally valid.
But that’s not what this is.
This isn’t slow and reflective. It’s overnight and aesthetic. It’s part of a full rebrand that happens to align perfectly with the only demo still clapping for her: conservative, wellness-minded, MAGA-adjacent moms who want their gossip wrapped in scripture and their political takes filtered through soft lighting and “truth-seeking” energy.
She used to post about protesting Trump. Now she’s covering his rallies.
She once stood on the liberal side of culture wars. Now she’s snarking on “woke media” and parroting talking points straight from the alt-right starter pack.
And yes, I know — heaven forbid a woman change her mind and grow!
But the receipts? They prove otherwise.
This isn’t about curiosity.
It’s about content.
About reshaping her entire public persona to keep hold of the one audience she hasn’t burned yet — even if that means pandering, flip-flopping, and spiritual cosplaying all at once.
Hello Brooke Shelby.
My name is Bud Seigel. It’s obvious you don’t know Jessica Reed Kraus personally. I know Jessica personally. I wrote a comment to you about your article on Jessica, but it was a little too lengthy and I couldn’t send it.
I would urge you to reach out to her and maybe have a conversation with her… she’s accessible. Because I can tell you firsthand, you might have a very different opinion about her if you actually spend some time learning about who she is and maybe even speaking to her or at least interacting communicating with her.
I can assure you, she is not somebody you would be able to assess from a distance and then write something with much validity. You would absolutely get her wrong.
Jessica Reed Kraus is one of the most unique people I’ve ever met in my life and and I have met countless people from every walk of life, some of the most famous on the planet, political people, music icons tv & movie stars, English Royals, the biggest names in sports, and all in intimate settings, for decades.
Also I’ve met many top executives at major Hollywood Studios, agents at William Morris, CAA, ICM, and I can assure you, Jessica Reed Kraus is one of those extremely unique figures that end up in the most coveted arenas because of her personality type.
I would say it would be an impossibility for you to figure out what JRK is about, even if you got to know her for a little while. To write an article about Jessica Reed Kraus, that would hold weight, you would absolutely need to have some interaction with her, you would need to know something about her personality firsthand.
I suggest sending her a message, connect with her, ask her some questions, maybe you could something valid, write a retraction, because I think that would be an interesting article considering there is a litany of editorials on her and they’re all the same, with the same basic narrative that seems to be coming from a place of unknowingness, and what looks more like jealousy, and not true journalism, calling her a grifter, her feeds being click bait, when the people writing the articles really don’t have anything of value on their own platforms. I can only come to the conclusion that there are so many people writing about Jessica Reed Kraus because she is popular, she has some fame, and these writers do not. There seems to be some hidden and also obvious motives with all these attack pieces, instead of serious editorial, void of any journalistic integrity. Anyway, I would love to see someone write something more truthful something more accurate.
You should contact her. You might find Jessica surprisingly real, humble and unusually normal compared to almost anybody in her line of business, nothing like you would think, and certainly not anything like you depicted her to be in your article.
I hope this message is well received.
I believe in as much communication between people as possible, as it’s the only way to a better understanding, it’s how we grow as human beings, and also correcting one another, weather right or wrong, leads to more self-examination, it’s how we get better at what we what do, and without that kind of interaction, even conflict, the work suffers, and life itself is less fruitful.
Sincerely,
Bud Seigel.
I have been a long time follower of JRK. Found her when she first started covering Britney. I’ve seen her battle some tough criticism over the years. There were always hints at this ego of hers, but the way this whole thing played out with Candace, Denise, Emilie and Olivia Nuzzi was just more than I could overlook.
She didn’t handle it with integrity and I was disappointed because I really wanted to look past it. It seemed largely ego-driven, petty, selfish and greedy. I was even noticing that with her campaign coverage. She was very sucked into the glitz and glamour of the MAGA events that are—sure exciting, but—not what most of us relate to. She can’t take criticism without it getting deeply personal for her and then she crashes out and blames, attacks, and blocks anyone who offers rational perspective, citing her Scorpio tendencies.
As a Christian, if she wants to read the Bible, I’m all for it. But I’m not comfortable with her attempted to connect salacious tabloid stories or government dealings to the Bible in the first pass. That’s the part that feels extremely disingenuous and pandering. I wish her well. There is grace and redemption for all among us.