Unbelievable! Acosta Enraged as Butker Escapes ‘Ban’ Unlike Kaepernick – Find Out More!

Unbelievable! Acosta Enraged as Butker Escapes 'Ban' Unlike Kaepernick - Find Out More!
Unbelievable! Acosta Enraged as Butker Escapes 'Ban' Unlike Kaepernick - Find Out More!
Share on social

In Friday’s CNN Newsroom, host Jim Acosta and sports reporter Rachel Nichols dissected a commencement speech delivered by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker at Benedictine College. The primary focus was a perceived double standard between Butker and former NFL player Colin Kaepernick. Despite Nichols crying foul and Acosta scratching his head over supposed injustices, their discussions have conveniently side-stepped certain inconvenient truths.

Firstly, Colin Kaepernick’s protests extended beyond just “police brutality”. He praised Fidel Castro—an oppressor of the masses—while enjoying the wealthy lifestyle of a celebrity football player. Furthermore, the NFL did accommodate Kaepernick’s views, constantly displaying messages against racism. Kaepernick’s refusal to participate in the national anthem occurred in August 2016, but it’s worth noting he had been benched for poor form during the previous playing season.

Nichols raises doubts over an alleged unofficial “ban” on Kaepernick, but forgets to mention that performance is a key factor in any professional sports. Butker, who kicked the longest field goal in Super Bowl history, undoubtedly delivers results, hence the adulation and support.

In her attempt to underplay Butker’s comments, she also ignored the underlying message. Reducing his speech to stereotypes of “pro-family, pro-religion, or pro-God” , Nichols conveniently sidesteps acknowledging the sincerity of his words. Butker spoke directly to the women in his audience, honoring their academic achievements, while suggesting that many might derive the same, if not more, satisfaction from raising a family. His words didn’t undermine women’s rights or careers, instead they celebrated a different, equally important aspect of life—family.

At no point did Butker imply that men should be absent fathers, or that women should be confined to child rearing. In fact, he acknowledged their respective roles in both professional and personal arenas. This misinterpretation – deliberate or otherwise – on the part of Nichols only fuels a misguided narrative.

Acosta and Nichols’ intentional obfuscation and finger pointing only serves to stoke fires of division, instead of promoting a much-needed understanding. Perhaps, it’s time they took a page out of Butker’s book and encouraged a conversation that doesn’t rely on muddling double standards or promoting unfounded narratives.

As conservatives, we can only hope for a more balanced and fair approach to commentary. A dialogue that can appreciate differing perspectives and covers the whole story without skewing facts. Less of Acosta’s “I’m sorry, what?” moments, and more of acknowledging alternative views.

Thus, here’s a challenge for journalists like Acosta and Nichols: leave aside your convoluted narratives and double standards, and uphold the virtue of honest reporting. How about we focus on uniting, rather than diving the nation?


Next News Network Team

Next News Network Team

Stay Updated

Get us in your inbox

By subscribing you agree to our Privacy Policy

New & Trending
Latest Videos
Follow us