Posted on 09/14/2024 8:56:37 PM PDT by Red Badger
Vice President Kamala Harris recently sat down for her first solo interview since securing the Democratic nomination, but the outcome did not go as smoothly as some may have hoped.
The interview, conducted by ABC News reporter Brian Taff and aired on ABC 6, raised concerns about the network’s editorial decisions, particularly in how Harris’ responses were presented to viewers.
During the short interview, Harris was asked to provide specific actions she would take to lower costs for Americans, a pressing issue as inflation continues to impact households across the country.
However, instead of offering a clear, concise response, Harris veered off-topic, delivering what has been described as a “word salad” about the middle class.
This segment, which took up a significant portion of the interview, seemed disconnected from the question at hand.
This exchange, which could be viewed as a key moment in the interview, was notably absent from the version aired on ABC 6.
According to Tom Elliott, the founder of Grabien, a media service that archives news coverage, the network made a substantial edit to the interview before broadcasting it.
Elliott pointed out that the portion where Harris struggled to provide a coherent answer was completely cut from the televised version.
Instead of airing the original response, ABC 6 reportedly spliced in a different part of the interview.
In the recorded broadcast, Taff’s question about lowering costs is still heard, but Harris’ actual response is replaced with a later, more polished segment.
This editorial decision has raised eyebrows and drawn criticism from media observers.
Elliott and others have highlighted the difference between standard editing for brevity and what happened in this case.
It is common for long interviews to be condensed for news broadcasts, with key points emphasized.
However, the decision to remove Harris’ original, stumbling answer entirely and replace it with a different response has been seen as an effort to make the vice president appear more prepared than she was in reality.
“This wasn’t just cutting for time,” said one media analyst, referring to the decision to edit the interview. “It was a deliberate choice to omit an uncomfortable moment.”
The edited version of the interview aired on ABC 6, an affiliate owned by ABC News’ parent company.
This has led to questions about the network’s impartiality and the lengths to which they may go to present Harris in a more favorable light as she campaigns for the presidency.
Critics argue that ABC 6’s actions cross the line from journalism into activism.
The omission of Harris’ real answer could be seen as misleading the public about her ability to address key issues like inflation. “What Taff and his network did is not journalism,” one observer noted. “It’s activism, and voters deserve to see the full picture.”
The full, unedited interview, including the segment where Harris struggled to answer the question, remains available on ABC 6’s website for those interested in comparing the two versions.
However, for viewers who only saw the televised version, the critical exchange was missing, raising questions about transparency and fairness in media coverage during an election season.
The decision to edit Harris’ response is part of a broader debate about media bias and how political figures are portrayed in the press.
As Harris continues her campaign, such incidents will likely remain a focal point for those scrutinizing her leadership abilities and the media’s role in shaping public perception.
"editorial decision"
eff The Gaslight Media and their fake "news".
Folks. We are screwed.
See my tag line.
No, we are not.
People are beginning to pay attention...and surprisingly...those people happen to be in the business.
How long can you be ashamed of what you do???
We’ll soon see.
Harris response... Take 25. Clack!
the jackass media always gives fellow jackasses endless mulligans
They write these articles in such a calm logical way, rather than just say they are lying cheating no good fraudulent scumbag democrats.
Editorial decision my butt. Like North Korea would do.
I too watched what they called the ‘full interview,” and I can’t helped but think that the woman who was at the debate had the questions in advance and had rehearsed answers thereto. Because the word-salad-spewing moron is back in a big way.
there are no depths of deception and evil the left will not go to to *win* this election.
I wonder if the only reason they are even having the election, or rather allowing it, is to give the illusion that we actually have a say in what is going on in the political world and halls of the government that is supposed to represent us, to keep us from a full fledged uprising to throw the bums out.
I don’t believe they have any intent on allowing the will of the people to set the course of this nation.
What can you do against someone who lies ALL. THE. TIME?
There’s not a shred of honesty in them any more except when biden goes off script and says something he shouldn’t.
Speaking of biden, where is he these days?
Even since the DNC, he’s about fallen off the planet.
given how much fuss was made before the ABC Debate, about Kamala NOT wanting the mics muted, with ABC allegedly denying her request, I understand her MIC wasn’t muted after all.
I thought that would be a big issue when the post mortem of the debate began.
yeah I did have gesticulating but old MS word correct here snagged it. I guess my other description would have been animated histrionics.
We're not... ABC is though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.