In a bizarre twist of events that could make any reasonable person raise an eyebrow, CNN recently decided to conduct an interview with a member of the infamous Sinaloa Cartel. Yes, you heard that right! A network that presents itself as a bastion of journalistic integrity chose to sit down with someone whose activities have contributed to the loss of countless lives across America. It seems as if the network is grasping for straws in its efforts to push back against the politics of President Trump and, in doing so, has taken a misstep that leaves most shaking their heads in disbelief.
During the interview, this cartel member was given a platform to comment on the United States’ classification of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Surprisingly, he responded with a casualness that suggested he saw little problem with being labeled a terrorist. He mentioned that consumers in the U.S. are the ones fueling drug trafficking, essentially throwing American citizens under the bus while justifying his actions as a mere means to an end. It raises the question: how is it acceptable for any media outlet to provide a stage for someone who openly promotes the very destruction of American communities?
Adding to the absurdity, the CNN correspondent seemed almost sympathetic to the cartel member’s plight, asking how the Mexican military’s crackdown on drug production affects his bustling “business.” In his response, he expressed some concern about the difficulties he faces but did not waver in his commitment to continue his operations. The choice of words throughout the interview painted a picture of humility, as if to suggest that this man—a producer of fentanyl, mind you—might be a martyr of sorts in a struggle against oppression. But should we really feel sorry for the guy who is effectively sending poison across the border? The short answer is no, and it’s concerning that a major news network would even entertain such a notion.
CNN’s journalistic choices here border on malpractice, leaving many to wonder what the network hoped to achieve by airing this interview. Was it to shed light on the struggles faced by those in the drug trade, or was it simply a failed attempt at showcasing a contrary viewpoint? Any rational observer could argue that allowing a cartel representative to share his story only legitimizes actions that have wreaked havoc on families and communities, all while failing to hold him accountable for his role in the death and destruction caused by his trade.
To top it all off, viewers are left questioning the ethics of such a broadcast. Is CNN seriously trying to paint this cartel member as a victim of circumstance? Many families across America, who have lost loved ones to drug overdoses linked to cartel operations, would likely agree that the coverage invoked anger and disbelief rather than sympathy. Instead of bringing attention to the struggles of everyday Americans affected by these heinous crimes, CNN chose to bolster the narrative of someone who should be in front of the judge—not the cameras.
In an age where media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception, allowing platforms for those who harm society is a dangerous precedent. The conversation should focus on accountability and reform, not on attempting to humanize members of drug trafficking organizations. As this week’s strange coverage unfolds, it’s clear that many are left wondering: how low will media outlets go in their quest for a headline, and at what cost to the communities they claim to serve?
