I watched CNN’s Wolf Blitzer – The Situation Room as he interviewed Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The conversation drew me in because Blitzer was pressing Speaker Pelosi about the Trump administration’s 1.8 trillion dollar deal for federal relief to the country.
The conversation landed with Speaker Pelosi calling Blitzer an apologist. Now an apologist, by definition, is someone who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. Obviously, Pelosi does not see an argument with people who are not in the negotiating room. I personally thought Pelosi had a great point because Wolf brought opinions of congressmen and previous primary presidential runners, like Andrew Yang, into the conversation. Pelosi quickly was offended by that. She seemed to have wanted to discuss the details of the deal. Still, Wolf wanted her to answer why she was not moving this bill into the Senate to put into Mitch McConnell’s court at these DNC outsiders’ advice.
Of course, in follow-up, CNN did the very thing they accuse Trump’s administration of doing to women. They labeled her aggressive and out of order for calling Wolf an apologist. This plays into the misogynist idea that women are too emotional to handle the gravity of the issues.
Wolf began to paint the picture that Pelosi did not understand the distress of a suffering people. Maybe her elitist attitude was interfering with her empathy. She defended herself by clarifying that she understands that she is fighting for her constituents. She tried to explain components that the Trump administration was trying to take away, but to no real avail.
Newsflash to Blitzer and CNN, suffering people are used to not getting help, first of all. Seeming as though you’re going hard for hurting people on TV is not helping suffering people. People actually want to know what is in the package and how it will benefit them. People want to know what they are doing for the states to help on a more local level.
CNN argues quite consistently that they bring the facts until they get caught up in the foolishness of politics. Journalism brings us the facts, not debates with politicians. We want to know what and why…definitely not who said what and why they’re not listening to them; when it comes to Andrew Yang, we like him but in this matter, who is he?
In this, I think Wolf was out of line. I do wish Nancy Pelosi would respond to Roland Martin – Unfiltered and go onto his show. I believe that he can get the information that Black people are seeking. We are tired of people speaking on our behalf but know nothing about the concerns and issues and only rely on what the data says.