With his message growing more hate-filled and unbalanced the press gives this actor MORE airtime.

The media has been playing a game for some time now when it comes to narrative-building messaging. Look at how frequently a panelist or a guest is granted airtime or print space to spout their biased opinions on a particular matter. It is done under the guise of an interview, delivered as one person’s viewpoint, and then positioned as somehow being newsworthy.

What is actually happening is the outlet can claim it maintains an ‘’unbiased’’ position, because this second-person testimony is not the stance of the outlet — it is merely presenting a notable figure who has points to make about a political feature, which then qualifies as ‘’newsworthy’’. What they are doing is using this person as a cut-out; the individual is able to express a narrative approved by the outlet while still giving it plausible deniability. ‘’Oh no, we don’t feel that way, that was the opinion of our guest!’’

Except the frequency of the message makes it the narrative of the outlet. Recall when Michael Avanatti was a thing. He appeared on CNN and MSNBC hundreds of times, trashing the president at will with baseless claims and unproven allegations. He served as the mouthpiece of the networks, delivering the approved anti-Trump message. Now we see the same taking place with actor Robert DeNiro, but it is taking on a very disturbed and troubling tone, and we need to call out the news divisions who are giving him a platform.

“He needs to be confronted and humiliated by whoever his opponent is,’’ the actor said Friday night, as reported by The Hill. ‘’The people have to see that, to see him be humiliated.” This type of language from DeNiro has been commonplace since the Trump election victory. It began with DeNiro making caustic remarks of opposition at select awards shows, basically him preening as a tough guy in front of his adored allies in the entertainment industry.

But then he began giving podium speeches and interviews where he delivered angry, often vulgarity-laced comments. This turned select heads, and DeNiro’s words became amplified in the press. He became emboldened, possibly feeling that he was charged with saying the detestable things many on the left feel about the president. As DeNiro became the acerbic voice of the resistance he garnered more media exposure.

To see just one example how DeNiro’s invective is embraced by the press complex, on Brian Stelter’s Reliable Sources he had a segment centered around the gravity of the Mueller report. His guest for the segment was global affairs expert and political insider, Robert DeNiro.

Yet as his delivery heats up we should ask, why is the press supporting this anger? DeNiro frequently uses not only harsh words but also threatening ones. You can see the times this actor slips up and lets fly with his confrontational talk, even when he attempts to modulate his message. On Friday he said of the political opposition to Trump he is calling for, ‘’They don’t have to do it in an obvious physical way, but they have to have the formidability to confront him and to put him in his place.’’ However he lapsed into his usual vitriolic stance with Trump immediately after.

As The Hill went on to detail– ‘’De Niro also said that he wants to “see a bag of sh** right in his face.’ ”

What gets exposed in this recent exchange is that there was no need for The Hill to report on this unhinged and infantile monologue from DeNiro. He said these words, not in any public or major broadcast arena — he was a guest on the Michael Moore podcast. This is not a newsworthy event, it is a forum that people actively have to seek out. There really was no justification for The Hill to report on this, apart from ita desire at amplifying the message from DeNiro to a broader audience.

Essentially the outlet gave the actor an op-ed column. The question is should it have done so? It used to be the practice of news outlets to condemn this type of language. A threat against the president — even a veiled one — normally would be met with an instant rebuke. Recall just one administration ago nearly any opposition to President Obama was shouted down with lectures against threats and contempt. Opposing him on policy was deemed racially motivated. A rodeo clown was publicly condemned for merely wearing a rubber mask of the president.

Now a notable figure in our culture is free to speak in not only confrontational terms, but aggressive ones. Recently DeNiro expressed dismay that Trump’s words could inspire violence, yet when it comes to himself there is no such concern. His desire to have fecal matter thrown in the president’s face is a pattern from this actor. Prior to the 2016 election, he spoke of punching Donald Trump.

Instead of outrage or condemnation, DeNiro’s angry prolix is given a platform. The Hill had to seek out this recent interview, the outlet was not presented with a helpless charge of covering a news item. It chose to broadcast DeNiro’s venom. The question – what happened to the concerns over violent rhetoric? It was just recently when Nancy Pelosi strained to interpret words from the President as being inciteful. Members of the press have long claimed in a nebulous fashion how they become threatened with potential violence simply because Trump will push back at them.

But then when a notable public figure says things of a violent nature towards the president there is curiously no outrage or condemnation. Well, in truth, this is not so curious. The press wants this. They want the DeNiro-type narrative to be broadcast. They look for it, and make room on their platform for it.

In other words, they support it. Therefore, even as they attempt to properly distance themselves, they are just as culpable.