In a world where media outlets often choose captivating headlines over serious journalism, CNN recently took the spotlight in a way that has left many people scratching their heads or smirking derisively. The network sat down with a member of the notorious Sinaloa cartel, a group known for its violent and illegal activities that extend beyond mere drug trafficking. Rather than focusing on the cartel’s horrific actions and the ramifications of their trade, CNN’s interview went in a different direction, asking what one could describe as unusually sympathetic questions. The interviewer seemed more interested in how the cartel member felt about being labeled a terrorist by former President Donald Trump than holding him accountable for the misery caused by his organization.
This bizarre journalistic approach raises the eyebrows of many observers, especially in a country still reeling from the negative impacts of the drug trade and cartel activities. Here’s a situation where a platform was provided to someone whose business, if you can call it that, involves heinous crimes, and the best question up for grabs was about his personal feelings on a label? The public might have hoped for inquiries into why the cartel continues to exploit vulnerable populations or why it profits off the suffering of countless individuals in the U.S. and beyond. But alas, those questions seemed to have been left on the cutting room floor.
Critics are quick to point out that this is just another example of mainstream media missing the mark on issues that matter to regular Americans. It gives the distinct impression that some newsrooms are more interested in crafting an emotional narrative than digging into the gritty details of real issues. Selling drugs and trafficking humans aren’t things that just happen without a choice. Yet, the interview feigned an almost bizarre reluctance to delve into these depths.
Some have humorously speculated about what could be prompting this type of coverage. Perhaps it’s a misguided attempt to provide a “balanced” perspective, though one can’t help but chuckle at the irony of treating cartel members with the kind of understanding and patience one might reserve for a wayward puppy. The real tragedy is the missed opportunity to press for accountability and truth from those whose actions cost lives daily. Instead of providing the firm questioning that American victims deserve, the interview seems to wink at the villainy at play.
A comparison has been made to how some media outlets treat ordinary Americans—like those featured in diner segments, often derided as parochial or disconnected from the big-city narratives that fill prime-time slots. In these segments, the people are at least portrayed as living, breathing citizens voicing real concerns. Yet while diners speak candidly about everyday struggles, a known criminal gets softballs served up with a side of sympathy. If one is choosing programming based on how closely it resembles a work of fiction, perhaps this conversation is their cup of tea. Expecting substance, though, may require tuning elsewhere.
