Here we go again. The mainstream media is flexing its muscles, throwing its weight behind the verdict in the case of former President Donald Trump’s New York business records trial. They’re pulling out the big guns, dressing up their biased agenda in the guise of ‘historical significance’.
CBS Sunday Morning had historian Douglas Brinkley painting a self-righteous portrait of America reborn as a republic in light of Trump’s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. According to Brinkley, our former president’s conviction is somehow an affirmation that ‘every American is precisely equal before the law’. Equating Trump’s predicament to the stand of our founding fathers, he echoes the sentiment that Trump is ‘just another Mister’ in the eyes of the law.
Hold up. Trump claims, “this is long from over.” And, if we’ve learned anything from this tumultuous era, we can bet that he’s got valid reasons to hold his ground. Unlike Brinkley, I’m not in the business of jumping to conclusions. It’s not about being a fan of the ex-president, but having some healthy respect for due process.
Then, Brinkley makes a grand comparison of Trump’s case to authoritarian countries and their leaders — a feat, undoubtedly intended to cast an even darker shadow on Trump’s situation. Conveniently ignoring the fact that these leaders would probably lack the very trial he is judging or the rule of law we are so committed to. This unnecessary comparison feels like a painstakingly crafted thriller plot; adding unnecessary drama to an already significant event.
What’s the rush to bring historians on air to weigh in on the verdict? It seems the primary objective is to solidify the narrative being pushed of a righteous judicial process in action, masking the agenda-driven moves underneath.
NBC Nightly News called on historian Michael Beschloss for reinforcement, who stupendously stated that the essence of America is respecting the rule of law, aligning the Trump verdict with this highly patriotic notion. Sounds nice, but peeling back the layers, it’s just more media posturing to lead the public sentiment in a preferred direction.
Brinkley has previously expressed his stand against Trump in various ways, including blaming his “authoritarian bent” on President Gerald Ford and criticizing Henry Kissinger for being “anti-democratic.” His verdict commentary is unsurprisingly in line with his previous critical views of Trump, framing this trial and its result as some sort of American Rebirth.
Brinkley’s ‘rebirth’ assertion positions this verdict as an affirmation of our democratic institutions. Such statements are merely attempts to disguise the grotesque weaponization of government power. As responsible and rational citizens, we’re left to question — America reborn as what indeed?
In conclusion, it’s critical to remember that the rule of law does not necessarily mean unwavering trust in flawed human outcomes. At the end of the day, the crux of our democracy lies in the right to question, probe, and challenge these results to ensure fairness and democracy prevail, not the biased whims of the mainstream media.
