Debate Fact And Fiction

Once again, the moderators followed David Muir’s precedent by attempting to slip in a “final word” before moving on to the next question. This appears to be a popular modus operandi within the liberal media where a question is couched in a progressive slant; the candidate is allowed to respond, only to have the interviewer either paraphrase or outright choose to issue a so-called fact check. NPR has it down to a fine art. And as we’ve come to find out, courtesy of such deep state drones such as Dr. Fauci, facts are manipulated and spun to their convenience. Bravo to Vance for not letting Margaret Brennan, all primped and posturing for her 15 minutes of fame, to insert a “legal Haitian immigrant” comment at the end of Vance’s well-constructed answer to a question on immigration. That opened the door for Vance, who pointed out that the CBS rules of engagement called for no such fact-checking, then he proceeded to school her on the concept of legality for this particular issue. That is, until they muted the mics. Real mature journalism. It may be technically legal, but the fact is that these immigrants did not achieve their status through traditional pathways; they were provided a special pathway and bestowed legal status courtesy of the Harris-Biden administration. It's not the same thing Maggie. Stay in your lane.

A BA from UVA should not be engaging in a legal discussion with a Yale-educated attorney. And speaking of education, how does your alma mater, the Convent of the Sacred Heart in Greenwich, Connecticut, the poster child for privilege, feel about your position on abortion? Another hypocritical Irish Catholic we don’t need. And her partner in crime, Norah O’Donnell, was no better inserting a “scientists agree that the global temperature is rising” after an exchange on climate change. Really, Norah?  How can you just hang a statement out there without allowing a rebuttal for context?  Is that journalism?  What scientists?  How was the temperature measured, and how much increase are we talking? Even our USDA reported that global annual air surface temperature has increased only 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 115 years. Considering that we have only been recording global temperatures since the 1880s on a planet that has existed for 4.5 billion years, we hardly have a representative sample to conclude that man is responsible for weather patterns. Explain the ice age and then the subsequent warming trend. Explain the Dust Bowl in 1930-1936 when the population of the US was 123 million, nearly a third of what it is today.  Explain why, with sea levels rising, Obama purchased a 14.5 million dollar oceanfront estate on an island. What about Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, who all own beachfront properties? Are they not concerned about the existential climate crisis they’ve been haranguing us about? Apparently, it’s just not that existential. But I digress. Enough of these over-coiffed, spray-painted talking heads who somehow suspect that they are the most intelligent people in the room, subjecting us to their peculiar form of biased journalism. You’re the moderator, not the appointed occupier of the bully pulpit. We tuned in to hear the candidates speak, not you. You are to referee, not to bend the rules to your bias, not to assist the candidate of your choosing, and certainly not to offer your opinion, whether you disguise it as fact-check or not. And enough of these liberal networks installing their obviously partisan talking heads as moderators. They have track records and it’s all available on video, their bias laid bare for all to see. Journalism is no longer objective; it’s playing to your audience in the name of ratings, giving them what they need to return for more. It has become editorializing. More ratings mean more advertising revenue, after all. If we were interested in facts, the debates would be held at a neutral venue, with moderators with no political bent.  Of course, that would be virtually impossible, so appointing a moderator from each side would be the next best solution. Perhaps professionalism would prevail, and they would keep each other in check. Or perhaps it would degenerate into a partisan brawl. Either way, at least there would be some semblance of fairness, something we have yet to see in this election cycle.