CNN Segment On Firebombing Doesn’t Go As Expected
Monday’s alleged attack on a federal building in New York City led to a revealing exchange on CNN’s “NewsNight,” where host Sara Sidner appeared to suggest that Immigration and Customs Enforcement may have contributed to the hostility directed at the building. Police arrested 43-year-old Andrew Arrabaca of Poughkeepsie, New York, in connection with a gas […]
Monday’s alleged attack on a federal building in New York City led to a revealing exchange on CNN’s “NewsNight,” where host Sara Sidner appeared to suggest that Immigration and Customs Enforcement may have contributed to the hostility directed at the building.
Police arrested 43-year-old Andrew Arrabaca of Poughkeepsie, New York, in connection with a gas fire set near the entrance of a federal facility. The building houses several agencies, including ICE, the FBI, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
According to The Center Square, Arrabaca allegedly told police that he was willing to injure or kill people if necessary. Authorities reportedly described him as an anti-government extremist.
Later that evening, Sidner asked conservative commentator Scott Jennings whether ICE’s conduct might help explain why people are becoming so angry.
“Is it possible that it’s the actions of ICE that has people talking like this, not just getting messaging from the Democrats, but seeing what’s happening in their communities?” she asked.
That question shifts the focus away from the person accused of setting the fire and toward the federal agency housed inside the building. Instead of treating the alleged attack as an act for which the suspect is responsible, Sidner’s framing invites viewers to consider whether ICE somehow brought the violence on itself.
That is difficult to describe as anything other than victim blaming.
Jennings immediately challenged the premise.
“So, if you believe that a government agency is doing something that you don’t like, and your choices are A, cast a vote, B, use your words, or C, go set off an incendiary device at the federal building in New York City, and you pick C, there’s no justification for this,” he said.
“There’s no rationalization of it, and that’s patently ridiculous if that’s what anybody’s going to argue tonight.”
His point was straightforward. Americans have many lawful ways to oppose government policy. They can vote, protest, organize, speak publicly, file lawsuits, contact elected officials, or support candidates who promise change. Setting a fire at a federal building is not another form of political participation. It is an alleged act of violence.