Staff Reports
The charade that is the mainstream media continues to baffle anyone with an ounce of common sense, especially as the political scene heats up heading into the 2024 election. Just take a gander at the recent antics surrounding a presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. In what can only be described as a geriatric version of “duck, duck, goose,” media bias has reached new heights, proving once again that fairness went out the window long ago—along with the last good cup of coffee anyone’s had at an airport.
RealClearPolitics co-founder Tom Bevan highlighted an amusing yet infuriating example of this bias on the platform X. Before the debate even kicked off, ABC’s pre-debate coverage was at a roiling peak, blaring its unfiltered opinion like a toddler throwing a tantrum. And then the magical moment happened: when Republican Senator Tom Cotton appeared on screen, suddenly the volume was turned down so low that even a dog trained to hear high frequencies couldn’t pick it up. Voila! It’s almost like Disney made a sequel to their animated classic “The Sound of Silence.” Bevan astutely noted that everything returned to normal volume when Democrat Josh Shapiro graced the screen. Color us shocked—it’s almost like someone is pulling strings behind the scenes!
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
The notion of “bias” has now evolved into something far more sinister, as some observers suggest the media’s favoritism isn’t just about being biased; it’s more like a coordinated regime effort to control the narrative. One astute user on X called out the ABC moderators’ blatant actions as “direct, planned interference.” It’s as if they’ve decided to don the black hats of Wild West villains, ready to tilt the scales of the debate in favor of their favorite cowboy—er, politician.
With the stakes this high, even veteran journalist Lara Logan has chimed in, suggesting that what we witnessed was no mere bias, but an intelligence operation at play. With the media seemingly more interested in manufacturing narratives than reporting news, it’s good to remember a famous quote: “the truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.” If nothing else, this serves as a glaring reminder of how the establishment strives for total control over the discussion. The slogan “no fair!” could not be more apt.
What’s the remedy for this debacle? One clever user proposed that each candidate should get to pick their own moderator. Imagine the uproarious laughter that would ensue watching Trump go toe-to-toe with Rachel Maddow, or Tucker Carlson grilling Harris. That would be television gold! Yet, in the name of fairness—something that seems as distant as the golden arches on a road trip—the establishment will never allow it. Instead, they intend to run roughshod over American freedoms and dialogue, eager to box anyone who objects into a corner.
In a situation reminiscent of Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided,” a conclusion is looming: this farcical state of affairs cannot persist. The leash on media control and bias must eventually snap, and when it does, it will be the brave conservatives who lead the charge. Until that glorious day arrives, viewers will continue to be subjected to an entertainment-style political circus, complete with biased scripts not worth the paper they’re printed on. But hey, at least it’s keeping the popcorn industry alive.
