Next News Network

In a recent episode, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, one of the few late-night hosts to air, chose to discuss the recent conviction of former President Donald Trump in New York. Unsurprisingly, Kimmel and his viewers relished the news, with the host revealing a rather biased dream.

Kimmel’s commentary kicked off with, “We got a verdict in the case of the people versus…Donald John Trump. He’s guilty of 34 felony charges!” Much joy was shared in the studio as the verdict was discussed with sidekick Guillermo Rodriguez, who played the jury foreman in a sketch.

In their roleplay, Guillermo declared Trump “guilty” a number of times, much to the pair’s amusement. Kimmel even flippantly commented that the former President’s efforts were all wasted. Drawing on this conviction, Kimmel continued to taunt Trump, hinting he should prepare himself for a prison life climaxing in a fight for the simplest of victories.

Kimmel’s bias could not be clearer as he suggested the jurors from the Trump trial be made the new Supreme Court. His scorn continued as he doubted Trump’s ability to flee from justice unlike infamous criminals who managed to escape on the same date as Trump’s scheduled sentencing.

He didn’t even spare Melania or the Trump family. He expressed delight in the idea of Trump doing community service. According to Kimmel, the day was hard enough for Trump as only Eric was present during the verdict reading. Thereafter, Kimmel made tasteless comments about a personal conversation between father and son.

Kimmel concluded his segment on a rather overjoyed note, basking in what he described as the satisfaction of seeing Trump finally receive some “comeuppance”. As for Eric Trump’s statement on the matter, Kimmel dismissed it with another joke, stating it was more likely to be remembered as a day of punishment for his father.

Unmistakably, Kimmel clarified during the long discussion that his interest in the whole issue was not centered on adherence to the law, but a subjective bias against individuals he seemingly dislikes. This revealing, yet unbalanced scrutiny, underlines a trend in contemporary television talk shows where objectivity is compromised for personal bias. It also raises an important question: can we really derive an unbiased understanding of important events from such sources? The answer seems unfortunately uncertain.

SOURCE