You demand fairness. But they demand your complete submission.
In fact, they no longer seem to care if you notice.
Tuesday evening on the social media platform X, RealClearPolitics co-founder and President Tom Bevan described the “unreal” media bias he encountered prior to the presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.
“In media file center they’ve been blaring the sound of ABCs pre-debate coverage,” Bevan wrote.
That changed when Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas appeared on screen.
“Except when Tom Cotton was just on. Sound went way down, couldn’t hear a word,” Bevan added.
Then, miraculously, things changed for Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania.
“Josh Shapiro comes on and the sound was turned back up. Unreal,” Bevan concluded.
In media file center they’ve been blaring the sound of ABCs pre-debate coverage. Except when Tom Cotton was just on. Sound went way down, couldn’t hear a word. Josh Shapiro comes on and the sound was turned back up. Unreal.
— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) September 11, 2024
ABC debate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis have come under scrutiny for what many saw as anti-Trump bias.
The truth, however, goes much deeper and paints a much darker picture of our present political situation.
Republicans can deal with media bias. They have thrived in spite of it since the days of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.
Today’s establishment media, however, consists not of biased journalists but of regime operatives.
In fact, one X user correctly characterized the ABC moderators’ performance as “direct, planned interference in the debate outcome.”
This clip may be the most egregious example of ABC debate moderators’ direct actions/inactions to affect viewers’ perceptions of the information presented at the debate.
There are at least seven instances of this within a two-minute span.
This is not “bias.”
It’s much worse.… pic.twitter.com/tYJhZwGwdW
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 11, 2024
Veteran journalist Lara Logan detected something even more sinister.
“My reaction to the debate: We are in the midst of an intelligence operation. Never forget that,” she posted.
My reaction to the debate:
We are in the midst of an intelligence operation. Never forget that.
— Lara Logan (@laralogan) September 11, 2024
Intelligence operation or otherwise, honest Americans of goodwill continue to long for fairness.
“Just let each candidate pick one moderator. Bingo. Problem solved. You bring in Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow as moderators and I 100% guarantee the most unbiased and meaningful Presidential debate in history,” one X user wrote.
I simply do not understand why the GOP allows this sick debate bias problem to go unchecked decade after decade. They do NOTHING about it. Grrrrrr…????????
…and the thing is, it would be so EASY to fix it. Just let each candidate pick one moderator. Bingo. Problem solved.…
— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) September 11, 2024
Who among us would not enjoy seeing Trump tussle with MSNBC’s chief Russia-collusion hoaxer Maddow?
Better yet, who would not pay good money to see Carlson question Harris?
It will not happen, of course, and we know why: because it would be fair.
Trump would relish the chance to take on Maddow. But the gates of Hell would freeze shut before Democrats agreed to allow Carlson anywhere near the word-salad-prone Harris.
We want fairness. They own the establishment media, however, so they intend to steamroll you into compliance with whatever they demand.
Much like Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided,” the present situation cannot endure.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.