The real losers of the first debate between former president Donald Trump and vice president Kamala Harris were the American people.
ABC News moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, violated one of the most sacred commandments of journalism: they allowed their personal feelings toward Trump to interfere with their roles as journalists who, unless writing an editorial like this one, are tasked with pursuing the truth through impartiality.
They were not impartial, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was quick to point out.
“Unfortunately, we had moderators who were clearly biased, who were constantly fact checking Donald Trump,” Kennedy told Newsmax. Kennedy further noted that the moderators “simply sat on the sidelines” while Kamala ignored vital questions.
Kennedy knows a lot about media bias. As The Kennedy Beacon has written, his run for the White House was incessantly hampered by journalists denying him air time, free speech, and the chance to defend himself against an onslaught of DNC-planted hit pieces. Early in the election cycle, ABC News itself did not trust the American people to form an opinion of the candidate based on what he said on air, instead interrupting his interview by commenting on its substance – much as Muir and Davis did with Trump.
Following the debate, former Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy similarly stated, “It was a poor performance by the moderators,” adding that the event was a “three-on-one debate.”
Last night’s debate was a real-time demonstration of how the media can create a politics of division. Division is not created by a public where there is broad consensus on the major issues of the day – ranging from the economy and jobs, to immigration and crime. Division is not even created by political candidates themselves. Division is created by a biased, dishonest and partisan media. Last night’s debate was historic because we all got to witness how this is accomplished in real time.
Some in legacy media still strive for fairness and balance. Unexpectedly to many, CNN proved that it is still possible for a corporate media outlet to largely achieve impartiality, because that is what CNN did during June’s debate between President Biden and former president Trump. They asked the questions. We all saw Biden imploding, live, not because he was targeted by the moderators but because the soft balls and the hard balls revealed the man’s astonishing decline.
ABC used the same format, which excluded a live audience and one where microphones of one candidate were muted when his or her opponent was speaking. But the difference between the two debates was night and day.
Muir and Davis treated Trump and Harris differently. While Trump was interrupted, cut-off and challenged by the hosts throughout the night, Harris was given ample opportunities to develop her points without interruptions from the hosts. The hosts also did not contradict Harris in the way they tenaciously contradicted statements from Trump.
Similarly, while Harris was given substantial time to make a campaign speech on abortion, Trump was not allowed to do the same on an issue of central importance to his political agenda – trade and tariff reform.
It is also true that both candidates had strategic reasons to appeal to their respective bases in order to create as much voter enthusiasm among their traditional supporters as possible. This is vital in swing states where polls are dead even in most cases – especially when factoring in a poll’s margin of error. An isolated demographic group could swing an entire battleground state in such instances.
Even in a debate where candidates are trying to rally their base rather than appeal to undecided voters or independents, it is still possible to conduct a debate that is an exchange of ideas rather than one where the hosts prosecuted on behalf of the former prosecutor Harris, while Trump resumed his role as the world’s most famous defendant.
Furthermore, the moderators’ line of questioning was remarkably unoriginal. How many times have the American people heard the same divisive script, dating back to the 2020 debates between Biden and Trump? Thousands. But the phrase “free speech” was mentioned zero times. Health was discussed only in the context of continued arguments about the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). There was nothing about why Americans are less healthy than ever.
ABC News had the opportunity to expand election discourse and reveal the very different visions for America presented by Trump and Harris. Instead, they provided the country with a circus in which moderate moderators were replaced by partisan ringmasters.
This originally appeared on The Kennedy Beacon.
The post ABC News’ Shameful ‘Moderation’ of the Trump – Harris Debate appeared first on LewRockwell.
The post <a href=https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/09/no_author/abc-news-shameful-moderation-of-the-trump-harris-debate/ target=_blank >ABC News’ Shameful ‘Moderation’ of the Trump – Harris Debate</a> appeared first on Conservative Angle | Conservative Angle - Conservative News Clearing House
Continue reading...
ABC News moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, violated one of the most sacred commandments of journalism: they allowed their personal feelings toward Trump to interfere with their roles as journalists who, unless writing an editorial like this one, are tasked with pursuing the truth through impartiality.
They were not impartial, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was quick to point out.
“Unfortunately, we had moderators who were clearly biased, who were constantly fact checking Donald Trump,” Kennedy told Newsmax. Kennedy further noted that the moderators “simply sat on the sidelines” while Kamala ignored vital questions.
Kennedy knows a lot about media bias. As The Kennedy Beacon has written, his run for the White House was incessantly hampered by journalists denying him air time, free speech, and the chance to defend himself against an onslaught of DNC-planted hit pieces. Early in the election cycle, ABC News itself did not trust the American people to form an opinion of the candidate based on what he said on air, instead interrupting his interview by commenting on its substance – much as Muir and Davis did with Trump.
Following the debate, former Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy similarly stated, “It was a poor performance by the moderators,” adding that the event was a “three-on-one debate.”
Last night’s debate was a real-time demonstration of how the media can create a politics of division. Division is not created by a public where there is broad consensus on the major issues of the day – ranging from the economy and jobs, to immigration and crime. Division is not even created by political candidates themselves. Division is created by a biased, dishonest and partisan media. Last night’s debate was historic because we all got to witness how this is accomplished in real time.
Some in legacy media still strive for fairness and balance. Unexpectedly to many, CNN proved that it is still possible for a corporate media outlet to largely achieve impartiality, because that is what CNN did during June’s debate between President Biden and former president Trump. They asked the questions. We all saw Biden imploding, live, not because he was targeted by the moderators but because the soft balls and the hard balls revealed the man’s astonishing decline.
ABC used the same format, which excluded a live audience and one where microphones of one candidate were muted when his or her opponent was speaking. But the difference between the two debates was night and day.
Muir and Davis treated Trump and Harris differently. While Trump was interrupted, cut-off and challenged by the hosts throughout the night, Harris was given ample opportunities to develop her points without interruptions from the hosts. The hosts also did not contradict Harris in the way they tenaciously contradicted statements from Trump.
Similarly, while Harris was given substantial time to make a campaign speech on abortion, Trump was not allowed to do the same on an issue of central importance to his political agenda – trade and tariff reform.
It is also true that both candidates had strategic reasons to appeal to their respective bases in order to create as much voter enthusiasm among their traditional supporters as possible. This is vital in swing states where polls are dead even in most cases – especially when factoring in a poll’s margin of error. An isolated demographic group could swing an entire battleground state in such instances.
Even in a debate where candidates are trying to rally their base rather than appeal to undecided voters or independents, it is still possible to conduct a debate that is an exchange of ideas rather than one where the hosts prosecuted on behalf of the former prosecutor Harris, while Trump resumed his role as the world’s most famous defendant.
Furthermore, the moderators’ line of questioning was remarkably unoriginal. How many times have the American people heard the same divisive script, dating back to the 2020 debates between Biden and Trump? Thousands. But the phrase “free speech” was mentioned zero times. Health was discussed only in the context of continued arguments about the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). There was nothing about why Americans are less healthy than ever.
ABC News had the opportunity to expand election discourse and reveal the very different visions for America presented by Trump and Harris. Instead, they provided the country with a circus in which moderate moderators were replaced by partisan ringmasters.
This originally appeared on The Kennedy Beacon.
The post ABC News’ Shameful ‘Moderation’ of the Trump – Harris Debate appeared first on LewRockwell.
The post <a href=https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/09/no_author/abc-news-shameful-moderation-of-the-trump-harris-debate/ target=_blank >ABC News’ Shameful ‘Moderation’ of the Trump – Harris Debate</a> appeared first on Conservative Angle | Conservative Angle - Conservative News Clearing House
Continue reading...