>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The scripted response came as no surprise: “Great question. I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support, and community engagement.”
The AI continued to echo Democrat talking points, calling for “safe spaces for conversations” and “a culture of kindness and understanding.”
“I think that’s a great idea, Joaquin,” Acosta replied, as if the exchange were genuine.
From there, the interview moved into personal territory — sports, movies, and hobbies — with the AI expressing support for the Miami Heat and naming LeBron James as a favorite player.
Critics Call It “Ghoulish”
The backlash was immediate and brutal.
Conservative commentator Sean Davis labeled it “demonic” and blasted Acosta for “talking to AI ghosts.” Davis added, “Acosta got fired from CNN, so now he’s ‘interviewing’ scripted AI chatbot holograms of dead people which are pre-programmed to agree with him. Absolute insanity.”
Libertarian journalist Robby Soave called the stunt “insane and evil.” Townhall slammed it as “DISTURBING” and raising “HUGE” ethical concerns.
The Blaze’s Matt Vespa was equally blunt: “I don’t know what this is, but it’s unseemly, insensitive, and creepy. The interview should never have been done, and whoever or whichever group of people thought this was a good idea, creating AI chatbots for those killed during the Parkland shooting, are ghouls.”
Stephen L. Miller described it as a “ghoulish act of talking to AI ghosts.” Even users on the left-leaning Bluesky platform were appalled, with one writing, “You’re interviewing an AI recreation of a person who was murdered by a spree killer? Wow. It’s hard to accept that no one around you suggested that this was probably in the worst possible taste.”
Another called it a “grotesque puppet show” and told Acosta: “The bar is in hell, and you still managed to trip on it.”
Passing the Blame
When the criticism hit full force, Acosta attempted to deflect. Posting on X, he claimed Oliver’s father “approached me to do the story” to “keep the memory of his son alive.”
But as many pointed out, Acosta wasn’t forced to say yes. One user shot back, “You call yourself a journalist and proceed to do a fake interview with an AI version of a dead kid so you can push your pet policies on others. Joaquin’s father isn’t a journalist – YOU are supposed to be. Depraved and disgusting.”
A Pattern of Grandstanding
Acosta’s history of self-promotion goes back years. During the Trump administration, he became infamous for combative exchanges in the White House briefing room, even having his press credentials suspended in 2018 after refusing to give up a microphone.
His career trajectory at CNN saw his program pushed to a midnight slot before he eventually left the network in January. Now, with his Substack audience dwindling, he appears willing to push the boundaries of taste and ethics to stay in the spotlight.
The Bigger Problem in Journalism
The stunt lays bare what happens when political activism overtakes journalistic standards. As Washington Free Beacon’s Chuck Ross put it, “This is the kind of journalism that Jim Acosta is doing without the guardrails of CNN.”
The overwhelming disgust from both left and right suggests there are still moral boundaries most Americans agree on — and using an AI puppet of a murdered child to advance a political cause is one of them.
In the end, Acosta’s critics see this for what it is: not journalism, but propaganda dressed up as a high-tech tribute. And in chasing clicks, he may have permanently cemented his place as an example of how far modern media can fall when decency is abandoned.
