Starting off, ABC correspondent MaryAlice Parks made headlines for her critique of former President Trump’s charged speech last Friday. Without specifically mentioning what these “misleading claims” are, Parks lambasted Trump’s apparent distortions regarding his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. But in all of this, what did she do but thrash and smash without giving more details?
Taking a closer look, Parks prides herself as part of the ‘we’ who apparently watched Trump’s fiery speech, when, in fact, ABC didn’t officially broadcast the speech live – ironic, isn’t it? She quickly referenced Trump’s stated intent to appeal the case and then charged into how he “fumed and railed” about it, labeling it a scam. She, then, exhibited Trump proclaiming the trial as rigged, expressing his desire for a changed venue and judge. And did she note these with neutrality? Far from it.
Parks’ crusade didn’t stop there. She made sure to underscore Trump’s conviction on all counts, attributing the jury’s selection to both the prosecution and defense. She decidedly parroted the prosecution’s claim that Trump illegally manipulated business records for under-the-table hush money payments to Stormy Daniels in a bid to guard his image in the run-up to the 2016 elections.
Yet, Parks sailed on, labeling Trump’s speech as “unapologetic” and “aggressive,” full of “rambling” and “misleading claims” about the case trajectory. She talked about firearm but conveniently left out on what caliber; she claimed that Trump made several attacks against President Biden, the prosecuting team, and judge without going into the specifics.
In the same token, you might wonder what specific claims Parks wanted to debunk. Not even the so-called fact-checkers could point to specific falsities, more or less turning it into a game of opinion-checking. Their defense of Matthew Colangelo, ex-Biden DOJ official, joining Alvin Bragg’s team seemed superficial at best. Equally hard to swallow was their dismissal of Judge Juan Merchan’s donation to Biden, based solely on the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics’ word.
Additionally, Trump having labeled the falsification charge as a misdemeanor stirred up quite a fuss. But when Trump was allegedly trying to hide some other crime, and this other crime was never detailed, it led to potential Sixth Amendment concerns. The conservative media rightly questioned and raised concerns about this situation.
To put cherry on top, Parks decided to amplify President Biden’s response to Trump’s speech meanwhile leaving a lot of specifics and clarity to the viewer’s imagination.
In conclusion, what MaryAlice Parks delivered was essentially an analysis filled with insinuations and sweeping claims about Donald Trump without straightforward details to back them up. Prove your point, yes, but where’s the meat? Where’s the sauce? In her passion to cast doubt, Parks lost the essence of concrete and fair reportage, leaving viewers in a maze of rhetoric and guesswork. Just like a meal without flavor, it was critique without substance.
