What would we do without CNN’s Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta regularly providing us with such clear examples of a biased establishment media pursuing an agenda rather than simply reporting facts?
But not everyone buys his narrative or stays quiet about it.
Take Agnes Gibboney, for example. Gibboney is an “angel mom” whose son was murdered by an illegal immigrant who had already been deported at least once. She’s also a legal immigrant who proved she was not shy about tackling Acosta’s narrative head-on.
Acosta introduced his segment by simultaneously trying to sound sympathetic and dismissing them because of their support for President Donald Trump. The instant the microphone was on her, however, Gibboney let her mind be known.
“Yes, I’m a legal immigrant. My family came through the right channels,” Gibboney said.
“And this is my only son, Ronald Da Silva, who was murdered by a previously deported illegal alien,” she said, raising a sign bearing the image of her slain son. “We need to secure our borders to protect American citizens.
“President Trump is completely correct on this issue,” she added. “We need to protect this country.”
“These ladies feel very passionate, feel very strong, because of the ordeal they went through, that President Trump is on the right in this issue,” Acosta said after her comments, claiming that Trump was counting on that emotion to push through his border security agenda in the face of opposition from the left.
“It just adds a lot of emotional energy to this issue, and you can tell just by being here in the Rose Garden, Kate, that this is a very charged issue for a lot of these family members here,” he said. “(Trump) knows it’s going to be tied up in the courts, it’s going to be a court challenge over the next couple of years.”
Earlier in the broadcast, Acosta had described the family members being mourned by angel families as having been “allegedly killed by undocumented immigrants.”
It’s unclear that Acosta meant that as a jab at angel families, as reporters are careful to use terms like “alleged” and “reported” to describe any circumstances about which they lack direct knowledge. But in this instance, it came across as insensitive, to say the least, and certainly didn’t reduce the “emotion” that Acosta seemed to consider a distraction from more serious policy debate on the immigration issue.
And, as you might imagine, Gibboney had something to say about that, too.
Acosta does have a point: The emotions associated with grieving are powerful and can distract from, rather than add to, the logical, fact-based issues that should rightly form the basis of policy debate.
It’s a shame he’s so ham-handed at trying to express it.
Another important point Acosta didn’t cover well: Agnes Gibboney came to America as a legal immigrant, and any legitimate conservative would applaud her for it.
Despite attempts by the left — including people like Acosta — to paint Republicans, conservatives, Donald Trump and the right as anti-immigrant, the truth is we recognize and celebrate the fact that America is a nation of immigrants.
Acosta appears to be either unable to comprehend or unwilling to articulate the difference between legal and illegal immigration (and therefore the difference between legal and illegal immigrants) and yet there are some people in this country who still seem to think he and his network are a legitimate news source.
Just think: If that weren’t the case, Agnes Gibboney’s son might still be alive.