Staff Reports
The political arena has once again become a circus, courtesy of President-elect Donald J. Trump. On a recent Monday, Trump made it clear that he is not going to sit back and let the political establishment manipulate the narrative, particularly when it comes to Iowa polling results and the editorial malpractice over at CBS’s 60 Minutes. With all the finesse of a heavyweight boxer, Trump is stepping into the ring, announcing plans to file lawsuits against pollster Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register for what he claims was a deliberate distortion of polling data that could interfere with the upcoming 2024 election.
Trump’s grievances zero in on Selzer, a figure that has been heralded for her supposedly reliable polls, which are often treated like holy writ among journalists and political analysts. Yet, as Trump pointed out, Selzer’s late-game polling tactics suddenly showed him losing by a narrow margin just before the election. This sudden downturn in numbers was enough to send Democratic hearts racing but could be more accurately described as a classic case of “polling malpractice.” How convenient that just as Trump seemed poised to dominate Iowa, Selzer’s numbers turned from a decisive lead into a nail-biter, casting doubt in the minds of voters and creating an opening for the left to pounce.
JUST IN: Trump Announces Legal Move Against Embattled Pollster Ann Selzer: 'Election Interference'https://t.co/Yej8wRKs2Y
— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) December 17, 2024
In the aftermath of his clear victory in Iowa—a state Trump managed to win by a solid 13 points, despite Selzer’s inaccurate predictions—one has to wonder what kind of ‘pollster’ would backtrack so dramatically on projections. Selzer, once thought of as a political oracle, admitted post-election that her polling was a “big miss.” What her data did do, however, was drive Republicans to the polls in droves, proving that sometimes the best motivator for the right is the specter of electoral misrepresentation. Perhaps it is this growing realization that has led Selzer to retire, a decision she claims was already in the works long before the polls went awry.
But Trump’s legal acumen doesn’t stop with Iowa polling. He has also declared war on CBS’s 60 Minutes, taking them to task for what he calls a “horrible” edit of Vice President Kamala Harris’s responses. Trump alleges that the show deliberately edited out a critical part of Harris’s interview, as if trying to sanitize her gaffes for a primetime audience. In a time when transparency should be at its peak, it seems that the so-called ‘liberal media’ just can’t resist the urge to spin their narratives—revised to fit their agenda.
Calls for CBS to release the complete interview transcript have been echoing in the halls of conservative discourse, as folks begin to recognize that editing can turn a so-so performance into a polished façade of competency. Harris’s answers during the interview, which were deemed by many to be less than stellar, seem to have set off alarm bells regarding the ethics of editing in journalism. If nothing else, the ongoing saga brings renewed scrutiny to practices that should be transparent rather than manipulative. With an FCC Commissioner jumping into the fray urging a full disclosure, the dramatics surrounding these media shenanigans are far from over.
In a world where political dynamics shift faster than a news cycle, it seems that Trump is keen to ensure that the truth—whatever that may be—ultimately comes out. Whether he wins these lawsuits remains to be seen, but if nothing else, they highlight a growing discontent with media bias and polling inaccuracies that pervade the modern political landscape. As the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction, but perhaps the real fiction lies in the polls and edits that mislead the American public.
