Pundits Showed Clear Bias in Trump Versus Harris Presidential Debate
Last night was a disappointing performance from the perspective of legacy media in ABC pundits David Muir and Linsey Davis throughout the presidential debate. It was evident that Harris was lobbed balls to knock out of the park, hardly fact checked, whereas Trump was given curveballs at 97 mph — nearly impossible to “hit” or answer efficiently compared with his opponent.
Either way, the lengthy and complicated debate was certainly one to remember, and to Republicans and Democrats, a dominant performance by each candidate — also one that undoubtedly did not move the needle in the national polls.
Despite who one plans to vote for, it’s hard to argue with how the media bias was ever so present.
Examples
Persistent questions posed by Muir about who Trump wants to “win” in the Russia-Ukraine war seemed relatively inappropriate given the fact of millions dying on the ground, in a war that was in fact initiated by Putin under Biden and Harris’ watch.
ABC aimed to debunk Trump time and time again, although refuted to do the same to any such claims at Harris. While often necessary on Trump’s end for clarification and hope he would present hard evidence regarding many of his claims, Harris was not some go-lucky politician up there standing in the face of morality and truth.
Project 2025 was spewed by Harris, which Trump insists he wants nothing to do with as of late. The “fine people on both sides” line of Charlottesville was thrown into action — recently debunked by Snopes — and not answering if she has ever met Putin in person among much more. But, there was no attempt in destroying Harris’ credibility.
A pundit doesn’t become an enemy of our nation if he or she consistently corrects a candidate. In fact, it helps the audience formulate a stronger opinion on each person.
“Do you believe that Americans are better off than they were four years ago?” Muir asked Harris, to which she circled around and discussed her childhood, next stating that she has a strong “opportunity economy” plan.
Now, this isn’t a pro-Trump article by any means, in fact it’s just a column from a member of the media hoping for better balance moving forward. Realistically, for there to be any sort of uptick in the polls on one side or the other, a clear bias must be eliminated completely from pundits alike.
Previously in the last Trump versus Biden debate, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash did an excellent job maintaining a conversational-based discussion between two candidates angrily attacking one another, and letting viewers do their own research of truth.
As David Bauder from AP said, “CNN determined ahead of time that Tapper and Bash would be questioners, not umpires. They didn’t follow up questions — except to repeat those that weren’t answered — and left it to the politicians to try and fact-check. Each called the other a liar.”
The Details
Now, Trump didn’t make things better for himself by any means, exclaiming the cats and dogs talking point which he saw on TV, presenting zero evidence, even though there are plenty of instances of people declaring worry which are attainable.
For example, Springfield, Ohio, videos of residents asking for help from local politicians at city commission meetings have surfaced surrounding animals (ducks in the case of this linked video) being abducted, which Trump could have shared as opposed to the household pets talking point. Either way, of course local officials will deny any claims of this on their watch, why wouldn’t they?
But, Trump did need fact checking across points in the night — though unquestionably, Harris did too.
Certainly, Harris baited Trump, and he fell for it, loudly exclaiming that our border czar has failed her duties, and how the nation is in great decline, in areas where it genuinely was irrelevant and held no prominence.
Harris did exceed all expectations, and proved that she is here for a competitive race ahead remaining poised and articulate, even though she too proclaimed lies and shied away from questions via the pundits. Still, this felt an evident “gotcha” debate aimed at infuriating Trump
Seemingly, nothing statistically will change as a result of last night, not to the fault of anyone other than the moderators.
Either let the politicians debate and let viewers decide, or efficiently fact check each candidate in a nonpartisan manner with sources and data. As the title suggests, only then will there be a shift in the polls, and will a clear leader be crowned the likely winner.
Yesterday proved how far apart we are from a united nation, and for one, I would have preferred a fairly moderated debate, where the quotes and mockery didn’t bleed into an emotional day in 9/11 — but that’s just me.
