Americans on both sides of the aisle were hoping for a clean and fair debate on Tuesday. But it seems that this was never meant to be.
As a shocking and disgraceful move during the ABC debate has Americans shocked.
Tuesday night’s presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris was not just a battle of ideas—it was a blatant showcase of media bias.
With ABC News moderators Linsey Davis and David Muir leading the charge, it became crystal clear that the media, once again, is doing everything in its power to prevent Trump’s return to the White House. The moderation wasn’t just skewed; it was an outright assault on Trump and a shield for Kamala Harris, as Davis and Muir interrupted and “fact-checked” Trump at least seven times while Harris walked away without a single challenge to her many falsehoods.
From the moment ABC News was announced as the debate host, Americans knew what to expect. The network’s history of anti-Trump reporting, coupled with its close alignment with the Democratic Party, left little room for neutrality.
It wasn’t just Trump’s supporters who anticipated this; even moderate and independent voices raised concerns about how fair this debate would be. Many, including Trump himself, voiced their frustrations, calling for a more balanced panel of moderators who would actually facilitate a fair and honest discussion.
But ABC, as expected, refused to listen. They went ahead with their biased selection of moderators, ignoring widespread calls for fairness. Trump, who knew exactly what he was up against, still took the stage to face both his opponent and the moderators who were hell-bent on fact-checking him, even when their so-called “facts” were wrong or incomplete.
Throughout the night, Davis and Muir bombarded Trump with numerous interruptions under the guise of “fact-checking.” Yet, each of these so-called corrections seemed more like attempts to derail Trump’s momentum and protect Harris from having to answer tough questions. Let’s break down the most obvious examples of this biased moderation:
During a discussion on abortion, Trump raised the issue of Democrats supporting extreme policies, including late-term abortions and infanticide. Linsey Davis quickly interrupted, asserting, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” While technically true in a legal sense, Davis completely ignored the context of Trump’s argument.
Trump was referring to extreme cases like those proposed by former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, where a baby born alive could be left to die if the mother so chose. Davis ignored this, allowing Harris to escape scrutiny on her radical abortion stance.
When Trump brought up the issue of crime in Springfield, Ohio, Muir jumped in with his own “fact-check,” stating that ABC News had reached out to the city manager, who claimed there were no credible reports of immigrant-related crimes against pets.
This, of course, ignored the larger context of rising crime rates in cities across America, particularly in communities overwhelmed by illegal immigration. Once again, Muir’s selective fact-checking served to downplay the very real concerns Trump was raising.
David Muir also interrupted Trump to claim that the FBI says “overall violent crime is coming down in this country.” This was not only misleading but also an attempt to obscure the alarming spikes in violent crime in major Democratic-run cities.
Yes, overall crime rates may fluctuate, but Americans know all too well the reality of rising homicides, assaults, and thefts in their communities, many of which are directly linked to lax policies pushed by Democrats like Kamala Harris.
When Trump discussed his concerns about the 2020 election, Muir couldn’t resist jumping in to challenge him. Rather than allowing Trump to present his case, Muir lectured him on the results of “60 cases in front of many judges” and repeatedly tried to steer the conversation toward Harris’s narrative of a fair election.
But when Harris invoked the debunked Charlottesville “very fine people” hoax—claiming Trump supported white supremacists—neither moderator stepped in to correct her. This is a hoax that has been factually debunked multiple times, yet it was left unchallenged by Muir and Davis. Why? Because it fit their anti-Trump agenda.
During a discussion on foreign policy, Trump referenced Harris’s failed leadership and her nonexistent diplomatic experience with world leaders like Vladimir Putin. Instead of pressing Harris on her lack of qualifications, Muir jumped in to “fact-check” Trump by asking Harris if she had ever met Putin. Of course, she hadn’t, but Muir’s interjection served as nothing more than a distraction, giving Harris a pass on answering questions about her dismal foreign policy record.
The moderators’ actions during the debate were not just a series of unfortunate interruptions. They were part of a broader, more sinister effort to prevent Trump from returning to power. The left-wing media has long played a crucial role in shaping public opinion against Trump, and this debate was yet another chapter in their ongoing campaign to smear him at every turn.
By repeatedly “fact-checking” Trump—often incorrectly or with incomplete information—while giving Harris a free pass, Davis and Muir demonstrated their willingness to do whatever it takes to stop Trump from being re-elected.
The American people are not blind to this. They know that the mainstream media, including networks like ABC, will go to any length to protect the Democratic establishment. Trump has been saying this for years, and once again, the debate proved him right.
The moderators’ biased behavior only confirmed what Trump and his supporters have known all along: the media is not interested in truth or fairness; they are only interested in ensuring that Trump stays out of the White House.
Trump, like many Americans, has long called for debates to be moderated by individuals who are willing to be impartial. The former president has suggested a number of alternatives—debate moderators who could ask tough questions without turning the debate into a one-sided attack.
Many in the country, especially those who have seen firsthand the manipulation by the media, agree. Why not bring in figures like Joe Rogan, who offered to moderate debates with no agenda, or independent journalists who could ask hard-hitting questions without bias?
But the left-leaning media wouldn’t allow it. They fear losing control of the narrative, and they know that a fair debate would expose the glaring weaknesses of candidates like Kamala Harris. That’s why ABC News, with its clear bias, was chosen to moderate this debate, and that’s why Davis and Muir intervened every time Trump began to gain momentum.
The horrific moderation during Tuesday night’s debate was yet another reminder that the media will stop at nothing to protect their chosen candidates and prevent Trump from winning in 2024. Their selective fact-checking, constant interruptions, and refusal to challenge Harris reveal their desperation. They know that if the American people see the truth, Harris and the Democrats have no chance.
Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for all of your news needs.
