Social media has been buzzing nonstop since the animated presidential debate Tuesday night. Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris duked it out late into the evening, and spectators have not been shy on sharing their opinions about what was (or wasn’t) discussed. However, more than other aspects of last night’s debate, are the posts and comments related to the “blatant bias” the ABC debate moderators had against Trump.
Accusing moderators of being prejudiced in a debate with such high stakes is not unheard of. But in ABC’s case, there are statistics that support the claim. According to a report from the Media Research Center’s (MRC) NewsBusters, Harris “could not have chosen a friendlier forum for” her first debate against the former president. After reviewing “all 100 campaign stories that aired on ABC’s World News Tonight from the day Harris entered the race (July 21) through September 6, including weekends,” an MRC analysis “found 25 clearly positive statements about Harris from reporters, anchors, voters or other non-partisan sources, with zero negative statements — none.”
The report added that this finding “computes to a gravity-defying 100% positive spin score for the Vice President.” On the flip side, “As for Trump, our analysts found just five clearly positive comments, vs. 66 negative statements, for a dismal 7 percent positive (93% negative) spin score.”
MRC went on to explain how their “measure of good press/bad press omits partisan comments, as well as ‘horse race’ assessments about the candidates’ poll standings and prospects.” And “while viewers of ABC’s World News Tonight certainly heard negative comments about Harris during these past six-and-a-half weeks, all of them were from Trump, his campaign team, or other Republicans — never from reporters or nonpartisan sources.”
Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!
On the other hand, while MRC clarified that they chose to similarly exclude “all Democratic soundbites about the Republican nominee,” it appeared “ABC’s reporters and anchors either jumped in to criticize Trump themselves, or broadcast negative comments from non-partisan sources to impart a heavily negative spin to the former President’s coverage.” The group also found similar statistics revealing the significant negative coverage of Trump on other outlets such as CBS and NBC. And yet, while other outlets were “extremely hostile” toward Trump, it still pales in comparison to “the whopping 93% negative coverage he received on ABC.”
In the final analysis, the report provided proof that the odds were against the Republican presidential nominee long before the outlet’s David Muir and Linsey Davis moderated the debate. Or as The Washington Stand’s Editorial Director Suzanne Bowdey pointed out, it seems “ABC did a good job practicing its bias in advance.” And considering the outcry on social media, it’s clear many other Americans felt the same way.
After hours of watching the ABC moderators incessantly fact-check Trump while not doing the same for Harris, one user posted what countless other users seemed to agree with, “This is not ‘bias.’ It’s much worse. This is direct, planned interference in the debate outcome. … When one side is repeatedly ‘fact checked,’ while the other is not, that is a signal to the viewer that one side is not reliable and truthful, while the other side is. The ABC moderators had their orders, and here you see those orders executed.”
Beyond X, other prominent figures weighed in on the matter. Megyn Kelly said on her show, “I’m disgusted. I’m ashamed of those moderators at ABC News. They did exactly what their bosses wanted.” It “was a mistake to trust ABC news with this debate.” Trump also made a comment during an interview with Fox News, calling out ABC for being “dishonest.” The former president said, “I think ABC took a big hit last night,” and he called for their license to be taken away.
Considering this rise in angst and frustration after last night’s events, FRC’s David Closson offered empathy, encouragement, and a call to action for all believers in his response. As someone who’s watched presidential debates since 2004, Closson has “come to expect the moderators to be biased.” At the same time, “given the high stakes of last night’s debate, I admittedly thought ABC’s moderators would rise to the occasion and replicate the moderators from CNN, who did a fairly objective, unbiased job in asking questions to Donald Trump and Joe Biden” in June.
Yet, not only did Muir and Davis fail in rising “to the occasion,” but Closson argued they actually “did a disservice to the American public by not remaining neutral.” There were several topics the moderators brought up such as January 6 and identity politics that were “not near as important as the issues that were not brought up” including more specific questions about economic policies.
In fact, he addressed how tensions within the U.S. have already been rising significantly under the Biden administration, and the bias and misplaced priorities during the debate seemed to have only fueled the flame of irritation and confusion within society. Or, as Closson put it, “At times, the somber tone and tenor of the debate reminded us that we live in a world that is quite dangerous.”
He continued, “Whether the threats come from Iran, China, Russia, or elsewhere, we live in a dangerous” and broken world. He referred to Proverbs 21:1, which reads, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever he will.” Ultimately, “American Christians, like their friends and neighbors, are probably frustrated with what we saw on television last night.” But regardless of what happens on November 5, “Christians ought to take comfort and remind one another that the Lord Jesus is still on His throne.”
This truth transcends despair, he said, insisting that it should help Christians remember that God calls no believer to complacency. “This election presents a stark contrast on issues that matter deeply to Christians, such as human dignity, religious freedom, and the family.” As such, he concluded, “my counsel to pastors, Christian parents, and Christians in general is to look at the party platforms, as well as the past accomplishments, votes, and actions of both major candidates, and to filter that information through the lens of a biblical worldview.”
