Nicholas Badillo ‘20
Recent years of American politics have earned the press and media industry an unfavorable reputation, with various organizations taking sides and instigating friction that has influenced the public opinion of the political climate of our nation. The Democratic Party and Republican Party, although not being the only sole political affiliations Americans may claim, are the dual avatars of the contrasting halves of the political spectrum; both the “left’’ and the “right” have their own prominent positions in national politics.
With such, as there are defined political parties, there are likewise “mascot” media companies that publish and often favor their own political ideologies. Media giants including CNN and Fox News clash as opposing forces on the arena that is US Media. Could it be that the government has begun to unfairly pick sides in this battle for the public opinion?
Jim Acosta, CNN Chief White House Correspondent, was painted in a negative light as forceful, disrespectful to a White House aide, and as belligerent towards President Donald Trump. The respective Parties clashed over the behavior of the journalist, attempting to manipulate the ‘altercation’ as a politically charged act of violence, as most conservative news outlets would claim.
Being televised live, many would think the footage would be impossible to dispute, yet Republicans and members of the Trump Administration generated vitriol for the left-leaning individual. Beginning with the parallel dimensions we understand as “social media”, adults in society bicker like children where the internet keeps them just a little farther than arm’s length away, or should I suggest, within the grasp of their thumbs. This was simply another skirmish on the media battlefield, where once again the ‘Right’ has felled their antithesis.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pounced on this ‘altercation’ as an opportunity to vilify alleged antagonist to society, liberal media company CNN. In her twitter post on November 7th, she shared doctored footage of the ‘aggressive’ journalist. In the original recording of the conference it is comparably slower, indicating the fast and sudden jerks in Sanders’ footage.
Thus, falsified evidence was allegedly produced to justify the revocation of Acosta’s White House press pass. The response by right-wing opposition would be swift and determinant. The actions by the White House would be crippling toward the career of the major representative for CNN.
Discussion brewed over the debate on the aggression of Acosta, whether or not being his contact with the intern should be punishable; eventually receiving his credentials in the White House, it would be obvious that the surrender of argument by Sanders would be a flash-point on the reputation of the Republican Party.
Can it be accepted that a representative of the highest office in our nation can manipulate the truth? Why is it that the Republican Party acts in a hive mind mentality in support of their representatives? Moving forward, the defense of Jim Acosta is a matter of defending the truth in our country. Setting such a precedent, we must approach future controversies by scrutinizing authority, questioning their validity and intentions for concluding an issue. We are simply giving lip service by complaining in our journalism of the misconduct of the conservative America; why don’t we vote for who we want in the elections?