Staff Reports
The spectacle surrounding CBS’s “60 Minutes” and its edited interview with Vice President Kamala Harris reached laughable new heights when the Associated Press felt the need to defend the indefensible. The classic liberal media playbook was on full display after the segment aired, leading to criticisms and mockery of Harris’s baffling responses. Yet instead of addressing this credibility crisis head-on, AP’s David Bauder opted for a patronizing explanation that only made the situation worse.
Initially, the interview aired on October 7, following a teaser that had been released the previous Sunday. What became evident to astute viewers was that Harris’s answers had undergone not one, but two significant edits. When the primetime slot arrived, it was clear that CBS had crafted a narrative that attempted to make Harris appear more coherent than she actually was during the full 45-minute interview. This blatant manipulation quickly became a laughingstock, revealing a level of media malpractice that many may have suspected but few could openly admit.
Catholic voters boost Trump in battlegrounds pic.twitter.com/o71HX5oxDn
— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) October 15, 2024
Bauder’s defense, which hinges on the notion of “typical editing,” carries a whiff of condescension. While some may not be seasoned in the nuances of journalism, it’s hard for even the layperson to stomach the idea that changing a candidate’s responses mid-aired interview is just part of the standard operating procedure. Bauder suggests that the average viewer simply doesn’t understand how editing works, when in reality, they’re more likely to grasp that what they witnessed was a calculated effort to sanitize Harris’s image rather than an honest representation of her thoughts.
The flimsy justifications put forth by Bauder and CBS fail to hold water under scrutiny. The claim that the editing was necessary to fit the segment into a 20-minute block is laughably contradictory. The promotional clips aired on Sunday were brief, reeking of the very editing prowess that only seemed to serve Harris’s interests. If CBS truly needed time constraints to edit, they easily had the opportunity to provide a more accurate portrayal of her responses. Instead, they opted for a kind of editorial jazz that left viewers questioning what really transpired during the original discussion.
Bauder’s further attempt to deflect criticism by claiming audience “confusion” reflects a troubling trend in media today. This isn’t about viewers being too dim to understand; this situation is about an established news network caught red-handed in a glaring act of deception. When CBS claims to be the victim of audience confusion, it exemplifies a broader issue where the media refuses to accept accountability for its practices, opting instead to gaslight the very citizens it serves.
What makes this whole debacle even more absurd is that seasoned journalists themselves have pointed out the media’s shortcomings, with former CBS reporter Catherine Herridge detailing instances of the network releasing full transcripts in the past. This exposes the accountability gap prevailing in today’s journalism. By failing to acknowledge its errors, CBS, backed by the AP, not only damages its own credibility but also undermines the public trust that is essential for a healthy democracy. In a world plagued by misinformation, the media ought to be champions of transparency rather than accomplices to obfuscation.
