Staff Reports
Moderators have traditionally operated in the background, allowing the candidates to take center stage, speak their minds, and engage in spirited debate. However, the recent presidential debate moderated by ABC News’s David Muir and Linsey Davis showcased precisely how to transform this invaluable role into a car wreck of partisanship and unprofessionalism that left viewers shaking their heads.
The debate quickly devolved into a display of overt bias against Donald Trump, reminiscent of past notorious moderators. Examples are abundant, from Candy Crowley’s embarrassing intervention during the 2012 presidential debates to Donna Brazile’s scandalous leak of debate questions to Hillary Clinton back in 2016. Muir and Davis’s performance was hardly an upgrade from this long parade of mediocrity; instead, they set new records for ineptitude and impartiality.
An excellent compilation of the ABC debate moderators' complete dereliction of duty from @tracegallagher pic.twitter.com/f5oPhJttEh
— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) September 11, 2024
Throughout the debate, Muir and Davis appeared more like campaign strategists for Kamala Harris than unbiased moderators. They repeatedly fact-checked Trump, but their fact-checks often seemed to lack credibility. When Trump spoke emphatically about the issues facing communities inundated by illegal immigration, including bizarre anecdotes about Haitian immigrants, Muir rushed in to dismiss Trump’s comments, even referencing the city manager of Springfield, Ohio. Yet, less than 48 hours later, evidence emerged confirming that residents had indeed reported unusual activities involving those very immigrants. The moderators’ disconnect from reality was palpably embarrassing.
In stark contrast to their zealous mission to fact-check Trump, the moderators remained conspicuously passive as Harris spun multiple falsehoods. She hurled around misleading claims about everything from abortion to “fine people on both sides,” with Muir and Davis offering little more than silence – the kind normally reserved for a lost puppy. Perhaps they were protecting their own credibility, but their apparent reluctance to challenge Harris might very well have led home viewers to question just who was moderating whom.
Moreover, when Trump attempted to address the glaring hypocrisy surrounding accusations of government weaponization against political opponents, Muir blatantly interrupted. The moderators seemed intent on rushing through the questions rather than actually allowing for meaningful discourse. This further emphasized the notion that they were less interested in a balanced exchange of ideas and more focused on ensuring Harris could skate by unscathed.
In a world where the moderators are supposed to facilitate fair and informative debates, it becomes apparent that this recent performance did anything but that. The need for impartiality and respect for both candidates cannot be overstated; viewers are tired of seeing moderators actively participating in the fray instead of maintaining decorum. It might be time for those in charge of moderating these high-stakes debates to observe the adage: if you’re doing your job right, no one even remembers your name. Yet with performances like this one, Muir and Davis will not soon be forgotten – for all the wrong reasons.
