Staff Reports
A supposed bombshell has emerged from the world of political debates, sparking controversy about whether the recent ABC News debate was rigged in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris. An anonymous whistleblower has come forward with an affidavit claiming that Harris’s campaign received insider information about the debate, including advanced access to questions and an assurance that her statements would go unchallenged on-air. While the itsy-bitsy details of this six-page anonymous document remain murky, the implications are loud and clear: the playing field wasn’t just tilted; it looks like it was cartwheeled over.
ABC News, in what can only be described as a classic double-speak maneuver, has issued a firm denial regarding the accusations. However, their denial is about as convincing as a magician’s disappearing act. They claim not to have shared questions or topics with either candidate. However, they seem to have missed the part about Harris’s campaign allegedly negotiating specific camera angles to make her look better while avoiding sensitive subjects, like the health of the Big Guy himself, Joe Biden. Coincidence? Maybe ABC News should stick to weather forecasts because they clearly don’t have a handle on the storm brewing around them.
ABC News Finally Responds to Allegations That It Rigged the Debate…Sort of https://t.co/63gkNnjoAj
— donn1e (@donn1e2) September 18, 2024
This little scandal, which has led some to question the integrity of the debate, echoes past behavior from the Democrats. Remember when Donna Brazile moved questions around like chess pieces for the Hillary Clinton campaign? What goes around, comes around. This time, however, it seems the Democrats are lining up for a game of dodgeball, hoping to avoid accountability while throwing everything but the kitchen sink at their opponents. It’s hard not to raise an eyebrow when allegations of misconduct seem to pop up in cycles like an ineffectual cold sore.
ABC is insisting they handled everything above board, but one has to wonder about their credibility. The network’s latest defense came on the heels of allegations that their moderators displayed more loyalty to Harris than to journalistic integrity. While Trump’s team claims unfair treatment, some viewers noted how Harris strutted through the debate practically unscathed. It’s as if President Trump was in the ring with one hand tied behind his back, while Harris was flinging haymakers without consequence.
Moreover, the story has taken a curious spin as one of the moderators, Linsey Davis, admitted that her approach to the debate was influenced by a previous disastrous performance by Biden. This confession throws another log on the fire, suggesting that moderators had a bias in favor of not letting Trump’s statements simply “hang there” without rebuttal. Yet somehow, when it comes to Harris, silence is golden.
Given the backdrop of events, it’s no wonder that trust in mainstream media is plummeting faster than the stock market after a Federal Reserve speech. The association of media outlets with partisan interests and the tendency to shield Democratic candidates from scrutiny continues to unravel. It’s difficult to expect objectivity from a network more committed to spinning narratives than reporting facts. As long as they bury their heads in the sand instead of addressing these growing concerns, the “rigged” narrative is here to stay—just like Harris at Vice President Biden’s side, basking in the glow of untouchability.
