Disclaimer: This article previously mistated that infants did not receive protection after birth due to Tim Walz. This is explained here and is false and has been removed from this article. The headline has been updated as well. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/18/tony-perkins/no-legal-protections-for-born-alive-babies-in-some/
If you tuned into the recent ABC debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, you probably noticed something strange. No, it wasn’t Trump’s one-liners or Harris’s canned responses—it was the moderators. From the start, it seemed like they were determined to make sure Harris came out on top. Neutral moderators? Not so much.
Viewers watched as Lindsey Davis and David Muir “fact-checked” Trump left and right while Harris seemed to get a free pass. This didn’t go unnoticed.
For voters, it was a painful reminder of just how rigged these debates have become. When the moderators are supposed to be impartial but show clear bias, it’s hard for anyone to take the process seriously. And, as it turns out, this was all part of the plan.
In a recent LA Times interview, Davis practically bragged about her role, revealing that ABC had prepared to prevent Trump from dominating the debate the way he had against Biden in June. They held “table reads” to anticipate ways to “fact-check” Trump. Neutral? Hardly. The fix was in from the start.
From Daily Caller:
“Davis, wearing pink glasses while speaking to The Times over breakfast at the Ritz Carlton in Philadelphia, said the decision to attempt to correct the candidates was in response to the June 27 CNN debate between Trump and President Biden, whose poor performance led to his exit from the race.”
The outlet added that in the weeks leading up to the debate, everyone involved at ABC played out “various scenarios” in table read-like sessions to ensure their ability to “fact check” in real time to avoid a redo of Trump’s debate against Biden.
But this isn’t just a case of biased moderators. It’s about manipulation, plain and simple. Readers will be outraged to learn that behind the scenes, the media has been working overtime to shape the outcome of this election. The moderators didn’t just correct Trump—they did so inaccurately.
Even more infuriating for voters is the clear conflict of interest between Harris and the debate’s hosting network. Harris’s long-time friend Dana Walden, a top Disney executive (Disney owns ABC), oversaw the debate broadcast. It’s hard to believe that Walden, a close friend who’s donated to Harris’s campaigns for years, wasn’t pulling strings behind the scenes. And it doesn’t stop there. Davis and Harris both belong to the same sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha. You can’t make this stuff up.
So, what was the real goal of the debate? Clearly, it wasn’t to give Trump a fair shot at discussing key issues like the economy or immigration. The moderators, with their blatant bias and softballs for Harris, ensured she could avoid the hard questions. But despite their best efforts, it didn’t quite work out as planned. Trump still managed to gain a bump in the polls after the debate, especially when it came to his economic policies. Voters might be frustrated, but they’re not blind.
This whole saga shows just how far the media will go to tip the scales. For voters hoping for a fair fight, it’s become clear that the deck is stacked. The moderators may have thought they were helping Harris, but in reality, they exposed the lengths the establishment will go to manipulate the outcome of the election. And that’s something voters won’t soon forget.
Key Takeaways:
- The moderators in the ABC debate were biased against Trump, frequently fact-checking him while allowing Harris to avoid scrutiny.
- Behind the scenes, ABC had prepared to prevent Trump from gaining an advantage, with moderator Lindsey Davis admitting they planned “fact-checks” in advance.
- Harris had a clear advantage with ABC’s bias, fueled by her friendship with Disney executive Dana Walden, raising concerns about media manipulation in the election.
Source: Daily Caller
