Published on June 27, 2024, 1:35 am

Thursday presents Donald Trump with a scenario akin to what professional wrestling giant Andre the Giant frequently grappled with – handicap matches. In the context of televised debates, this represents a somewhat unequal fair play. In contrast to some counterparts in the past world of professional wrestling, such as Grand Wizard and Captain Lou Albano who navigated their matches with decency, Trump finds himself faced with an orchestrated tag team against him.

The likes of Tapper and Bash from CNN play the role of moderators in the debate but far from being neutral presiding figures, they seemingly harbor aggressive inclination towards Trump. This can be compared to incidences in wrestling where biased referees have quirkily played into swaying outcomes of games. For example, a particularly memorable match where Hulk Hogan was vanquished by Andre due to underhanded interference from referee Dave Hebner’s identical twin Earl.

Earlier this week, a discussion on CNN took an unsavory turn when anchor Kasie Hunt reacted defensively after Karoline Leavett, spokesperson for Trump, recounted some disconcerting comments made by Tapper about Trump. This exposure pushed CNN onto the defensive resulting in allegations of “attack.”

Over the years there’ve been instances where Tapper has unabashedly referred to Trump as a liar, brought him into dubious comparison with Adolf Hitler, perpetuated Democratic party propaganda suggesting Russian collusion in Trump’s 2016 presidential victory and more controversially speculated over his sanity publicly. All these instances amount to unbecoming conduct for someone expected to be an objective moderator at the upcoming Thursday debate.

Such biases aren’t exclusive to CNN; most news networks have been seen repackaging extreme partisans as unbiased journalists. This bias stirs up skepticism among listeners and significantly diminishes their trust towards networks’ media coverage which don’t present real news from an even-hand perspective.

Individuals like George Stephanopoulos have made strides within ABC News despite having worked closely with Michael Dukakis, Dick Gephardt, and other Democratic officeholders prior to becoming an advisor to Bill Clinton. Others like Chuck Todd got their maiden breaks in journalism while actively campaigning for politicians, yet object to contributors who’ve been political affiliates making remarks related to their profession.

Ignoring potential sources of bias is a pity – journalism schools provide considerable breeding ground for left-wing thoughts which are more potent than campaign trails. This unfortunately heightens the risk of bias whether it is Jake Tapper, Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper or Jim Acosta moderating the presidential debate. Trust in media remains a perilous battleground between journalists – two-thirds of whom believe they report accurately and major stories – and the public where only a third agree with that sentiment.

An interesting finding comes from Pew Research Center that indicates ideological leanings within media occurs at a markedly high rate with 10 times as many Democrats as Republicans working in this field. Considering such circumstances leaves one to question why such partisan discussions propelled by disguised journalists take over prime time television slots.

The real news is but quite simply this: It’s critical that consumers of media hold news networks accountable for trusted news coverage based on non-biased perspectives founded on a Christian worldview (for some viewers). Anything less depreciates the essence of objectivity expected in news coverage thereby enabling skewed interpretations of key issues faced by our society today.