ABC’s David Muir was one of the moderators for the debate earlier this week. Yes, I’ve declined to get into a discussion of the debate, but that was because I didn’t bother to watch it. Others were covering it and I decided to let them.
But like any good political junkie, I have followed the responses to it. For me, that’s where the interesting stuff happens, anyway.
Much of it from the right has been to criticize the moderators, some noting that it was one-on-three rather than just a debate between Trump and Harris.
And there’s probably something to that. After all, it’s pretty clear at least one of the supposedly neutral moderators was anything but.
Conservatives say a recent study showing Vice President Kamala Harris receiving significantly more favorable coverage on ABC’s "World News Tonight with David Muir" than former President Trump should have been a clear indicator that Tuesday night’s debate was going to be hostile territory.
ABC News has come under fire after Muir and co-moderator Linsey Davis repeatedly fact-checked Trump while failing to correct Harris even a single time. The ABC moderators have also been urged to issue a correction on their abortion coverage and were scolded for giving Harris a pass on her explanation for recent policy flip-flops.
…
When it comes to the debate moderators, Davis seemingly linked Trump to the Ku Klux Klan by noting during ABC coverage of the Democratic National Convention that the former president was scheduled to appear in the same Michigan town where the KKK held a protest earlier this year.
As for Muir, the conservative Media Research Center found prior to the debate that his program, "World News Tonight," has been more "positive towards Harris and the most hostile to Trump" compared to evening newscasts on NBC and CBS.
Bozell’s MRC reviewed 100 campaign stories on ABC’s "World News Tonight" that aired from July 21 when Harris entered the race through September 6.
"Our analysts found 25 clearly positive statements about Harris from reporters, anchors, voters or other non-partisan sources, with zero negative statements — none. That computes to a gravity-defying 100% positive spin score for the Vice President," MRC NewsBusters contributing editor Rich Noyes wrote.
"As for Trump, our analysts found just five clearly positive comments, vs. 66 negative statements, for a dismal 7 percent positive -- 93% negative -- spin score," Noyes continued. "During these same weeks, both the ‘CBS Evening News’ and ‘NBC Nightly News’ also delivered highly positive coverage for Harris, and mostly negative coverage for Trump, yet not as extreme as we found with ABC’s ‘World News Tonight.’"
With news coverage like that, is it any wonder that Trump isn’t destroying Harris in the polls?
And these were the moderators for the debate. There’s a reason why people think it was one-on-three…it’s because it was.
The media long ago gave up any pretenses of neutrality. They’re not even trying anymore and they haven’t for a long time, but this sort of quantifies the whole thing. It’s just one example I’ve run into today. There are others.
Now, I don’t mind a biased media. After all, I’m part of the media and I’m biased on almost every issue you care to name. It would be hypocritical of me to think all media everywhere should have neutrality.
What I have a problem with is the media’s failure to acknowledge its biases. If they want to be progressive, then fine. Admit it. Make a declaration so people at least know where the slant is coming from.
At least then I can figure out exactly what I can trust coming from them and what I can’t.
And trust is a major issue.
Think about the story about Haitian immigrants eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio. There are a lot of stories about it and many in the media claim it’s all a hoax. And that’s when they don’t claim it’s a racist hoax.
I honestly don’t know if it’s a thing or not.
But I’ve seen interviews with folks who live there that claim it’s happening. There are videos here and there that, in and of themselves might not mean much but taken as a whole suggest there might be something going on.
Meanwhile, the media is saying it’s false, and their only evidence is local officials denying it.
I’m sorry, but I’m inclined to believe it’s real simply because of the media’s crap job in covering anything over the last little while, especially over the last eight years. If they said the sky was blue, I’d have to verify it either through my own observations or from someone I can actually trust.
The bias is so bad, and they’re not even really trying to hide it anymore, but they won’t admit it so we know when to ignore them. So, I say we ignore them as a general rule until the networks shutter their news operations and CNN shuts its doors forever.
Tilting at Windmills is 100% reader-supported. If you enjoyed this article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription for 15% off the first year or making a one-time donation here. You can also check out our check out our store. Your support is greatly appreciated.
Muir’s on ABC, not NBC. Love your work. Here to help.