Telemundo anchor María Celeste Arrarás is at it again, appropriating the horrific shooting in Parkland, Florida as the basis of an unhinged editorial rant targeted at U.S. Senator Marco Rubio that is laden with fallacies, inconsistencies and outright smears in furtherance of the gun control agenda so prevalent in our domestic Spanish-language news media.
Arrarás, of course, has a history of taking gratuitous swipes at Rubio under the guise of journalism- specifically during the February 2016 Republican presidential primary debate on CNN, in which she made the most of her screen time by suggesting that Rubio didn't care about the Puerto Rican economy, and her editorializing of Pope Francis' remarks on immigration during his past visit to the United States. Also among Arrarás' past hits: a notoriously soft interview of Hillary Clinton, and her deliberate muddying of a report on the Clinton email scandal.
Here is Arrarás' most recent "Controversial Commentary" in its entirety, as aired on Telemundo's Al Rojo Vivo on Friday, February 16, 2018:
MARIA CELESTE ARRARAS, TELEMUNDO ANCHOR: After this massacre, many are demanding that politicians take action and regulate the sale of firearms. At this time, there are three signs rolling through Miami, criticizing the Republican Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio for not doing anything to control guns in this state, a state that has very relaxed laws when compared to others. His critics say that Rubio's gag is the National Rifle Association, or NRA, which has paid him over three million dollars throughout his political career. One day after the killing, Senator Rubio said that if a person has decided to commit a crime, they will find a way to do so. In other words, that imposing new restrictions would not be effective. And he did this 24 hours after saying that we had to pray, and he posted several Psalms, but has never argued anything in favor of imposing laws that truly make a difference in preventing this type of slaughter in the future.
Whereas most of of the media correctly identifies NRA political donations as such, Arrarás goes far beyond that in order to suggest that Rubio took direct payment from the NRA. In other words, a bribe. The alternative, which requires a massive suspension of disbelief, is to believe that Arrarás somehow doesn't know the difference between a donation to a campaign and a direct bribe. When paired with her "gag" remark, Arrarás' language leaves no doubt about what she is trying to convey to her viewers.
Arrarás laid the NRA bribery predicate as a basis for Rubio's remarks, including his skepticism regarding new gun-control restrictions. With regard to the latter, Arrarás fails to note that the Washington Post rated Rubio's statements as true back in 2015. But that would've gotten in the way of the agenda at hand.
Finally, Arrarás unleashes some of that old-time bigotry against persons of faith, by stating that Rubio "posted several psalms", but never put forth anything that would prevent such an attack in the future- more "thoughts and prayers" mockery from the media. Arrarás goes on to say that Rubio hasn't put forth anything that would stop future shootings, but offers no evidence of this. I fear that viewers are expected to take her wild rant at face value.
If Arrarás' editorial commentary is indeed controversial, it is because it is so full of bile and half-truths. Telemundo, which once sought to position itself as an alternative to Univision's biased news division, now appears to be scurrying to its left. Its viewers deserve far better.
