Staff Reports
Debates can be a revealing window into political biases, and the recent clash involving former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris made that abundantly clear. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News appeared to have a one-sided approach to fact-checking, playing favorites while lobbing interruptions at Trump like they were piñatas. Meanwhile, Harris slid through the debate like a greased pig, stirring the pot with her parade of untruths, and, shockingly, the moderators remained mute.
When it came to the January 6 incident, Harris decided to rewrite history on the fly. She neglected to mention that Trump called for peaceful protests and instead threw around the falsehood that Capitol Police officers met deadly fates that day. Sure, Ashli Babbitt was tragically shot by a Capitol Police officer who apparently skipped the “give a verbal warning” part of the academy training, and yes, several other Trump supporters lost their lives. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good narrative — Harris’s claims went unchecked like a rogue moped racing down a one-way street.
PROOF that ABC moderators helped Kamala. EVERY SINGLE THING trump said they fact checked, but when Kamala lied, they didn’t, even when she dropped the “fine people” hoax, proven a hoax by snopes, they didn’t fact check her!!
And trump still did great!! pic.twitter.com/ctrChSaro5
— Common Sense Custodian (@Wall_St_Custo) September 11, 2024
The debate continued, and Harris’s pattern of deception showed no signs of tapering off. She boldly claimed she never supported a ban on fracking, which is a delightful twist given her previous endorsement of policies that would have effectively shut down the job-creating practice. For those keeping score at home, this is akin to someone vehemently denying that they ever liked a certain sitcom, only to find Instagram photos from three years ago of them smashing popcorn in front of the TV during a marathon.
Then, Harris stirred the pot again by repeating the thoroughly debunked nonsense about Trump labeling neo-Nazis as “very fine people” after the 2017 Charlottesville rally. Despite multiple fact-checking entities having deflated this balloon of misinformation, including the ever-reliable Snopes, Harris somehow felt empowered to rehash this lie as if it were a home-cooked recipe. And guess what? Muir and Davis remained conspicuously silent while she tossed this stale narrative into the mix.
To cap it all off, Harris accused Trump of inciting a “bloodbath” should he lose the election. Anyone with a half-decent grasp of the English language (or even a simple reading of the context) would know that Trump’s comments pointed to the troubles that Biden’s policies could bring to the auto industry, not some call to arms. But why let a little thing like context ruin a perfectly good opportunity for fearmongering?
In a world where facts seem more flexible than a yoga master, it’s clear that when the lights dim and the cameras roll, political narratives can swing wildly to favor one side. For viewers tuning in, the disparity in how Muir and Davis handled facts illustrates a growing trend: one side gets scrutinized like a toddler’s finger painting, while the other glides through unchecked. In the end, this debate may have raised more eyebrows than a well-placed eyebrow pencil at a beauty pageant, leaving many wondering just where the integrity of journalism has gone.
