By John Q. Hosedrinker Charlamagne tha God’s recent takedown of CNN for their so-called news coverage of Donald Trump struck a chord that reverberated far beyond the usual discussions we have about politics. The clip that has gone viral resonates with my ongoing frustration with how mainstream media handles figures like Trump. Charlamagne didn’t pull any punches when he dismissed CNN’s attempts at “balance” as outright bullshit. It’s about time someone called out these networks for their failure to confront the gravity of what’s at stake.
The conversation started innocuously enough, discussing Trump’s appearance on the *Joe Rogan Experience*, but Charlamagne quickly shifted gears. He didn’t merely comment on the spectacle of a former president gracing a popular podcast; he addressed the underlying issues: the rhetoric that Trump uses and why it shouldn’t just be glossed over. I found myself nodding along as he emphasized that Americans need to pay closer attention to Trump’s dangerous talk about putting people in camps or terminating the Constitution. How is it that in this supposed land of the free, we are even contemplating someone who openly flouts democratic norms?
Charlamagne’s frustration escalates when he accuses CNN of not having honest conversations about Trump since 2016. And he’s absolutely right; the coverage of Trump has often danced around the empirical truths of his behavior and statements. Instead of providing a clear-eyed critique of his actions and the potential ramifications for democracy, the media often opts for a Trump-centric glamorization that downplays the threat his rhetoric poses. It’s disappointing, infuriating even, to witness how easily these platforms can normalize extreme rhetoric while simultaneously placing impossible expectations on figures like Kamala Harris.
The double standard Charlamagne highlights is both glaring and frustrating. Here you have Trump, who can spread lies and hateful rhetoric without serious consequence, whereas Harris gets scrutinized for minor misstatements or for simply existing as a high-profile Black woman in politics. One wrong word from her is sensationalized, and yet Trump can boast about his affection for Nazi generals without so much as a raised eyebrow from networks that claim to practice “balanced reporting.” This isn’t just media bias—it’s a failure to uphold an ethical responsibility to empower the truth.
Charlamagne pointedly tells Anderson Cooper, “That’s bullshit,” and I couldn’t agree more. Media outlets have a duty to present facts, not just a platform for various viewpoints. The issue isn’t simply that they’re giving airtime to dissenting opinions; it’s that they’re often platforming ridiculous claims that can mislead the politically uninformed. Why should we be subjected to the opinions of ill-informed “experts” who barely scrape the surface of the issues at hand? Popular news networks seem more interested in generating clicks and viewer engagement than in providing solid, factual news.
It’s an exhausting cycle. Even as the news landscape has shifted toward tabloid-style antics, the weighty issues that demand nuanced dialogue often remain unaddressed. Instead, we see outrageous Trump statements met with shrugs, while solitary gaffes from Democrats are played on repeat, effectively weaponizing those missteps. I am left wondering: What is it going to take for mainstream media to recognize its complicity in this approach? More importantly, what does it say about us as consumers of news when we accept this level of mediocrity?
Charlamagne making these bold statements potentially opens the floodgates for more critical conversations around Trump and the media’s role in facilitating his narratives. He is right to demand more not only from breakdowns of complex political figures but also from the subsequent discourse that shapes public understanding. We need to hold media accountable — not just for the content they choose to air but for the implications that come from how they frame political discourse.
There is a sense of urgency that Charlamagne projects when he raises these issues. The rise of fascist rhetoric should not be treated as mere fodder for entertainment or ratings. The implications of these narratives run deep, shaping public opinion and affecting real lives. So when he asks if the country should be electing someone who promotes such dangerous ideas, it resonates with many of us who perceive the stakes of the upcoming elections as a battle for the very soul of democracy.
In the end, their failure to confront these double standards isn’t just harmful; it’s deeply irresponsible. I appreciate how unapologetically Charlamagne brought this truth to the forefront, reminding us that we deserve a media landscape that reflects honesty and accountability rather than sensationalism and complacency. It’s high time for all of us to demand more from our news sources and to reject any narrative that downplays the seriousness of the radicalization taking root in our political system.