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.
Just another tentacle of the beast.
Reminds of the montages of local media using the same exact phrases in their “reporting”
The media adjusting facts to fit a narrative has been going on since the Gutenberg Press was invented.
In our great nation CBS’s Walter Cronkite, often referred to “The Most Trusted Man In America”, took full advantage of that title and started lying about the Vietnam war. He got by with it.
The media started lying about other subjects until it has snowballed into just one massive gaslighting operation equating to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany’s efforts.
People are catching on to it, finally. The debate was one of their twisted little operations that the public quickly figured out. (Much quicker than some of the worry warts here at FR)
Our laws, even if it means a Constitutional Amendment, need to be changed to rein in all this lying. It’s a huge mistake for our Forefathers to have overlooked this.
“there are no depths of deception and evil the left will not go to to *win* this election.”
I think about that a lot. Trump winning in 2016 probably saved the country, but for how long? If Clinton wins in 2016, she probably would have won re-election, as most incumbents do. We’d likely have a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court right now. That could have already hurt us. Instead of ruling we do have the right to bear arms, just like the Constitution says, they may have ruled no we don’t. Same with free speech. Forget about the Dobbs decision, that certainly would not have happened.
No, without the 4 years of Trump, and his 3 Supreme Court justices, they’d be much further down the road remaking the USA in a Marxist totalitarian hellhole. They’ve made up a lot of ground in Biden’s 4 years, but they still have the conservative majority on the USSC. They can’t let Trump get in there to replace Alito and Thomas. Then they’d be stuck with a conservative majority for another 10-20 years. A win in 2024, and they might be able to finish us off in the next 10 years or so.
Yeah, I fear we’ll see a 2020 repeat, all the counting mysteriously stops in the usual places at midnight, and then by Friday, hey, what do you know, we lost. Or, worse yet, if they think for a second they won’t be able to pull that off, they just let Zelensky start lobbing missiles at Moscow and see what happens. Great excuse to delay the election.
As Nully’s meme so wisely points out, “They want to take our guns away because they are doing things we would shoot them for.”............
Yes, I definitely heard her say something when Trump was speaking..............Nobody seems to have picked up on it.......
So, from FJB to FKH and FABC . . .
I think(fear) you are right.
They’ve already proved that there’s no depths to which they won’t sink, including assassination. The only consolation and encouragement is that assassination attempt and fail shows that God’s hand is in this and He’s still in control, come what may.
Along with Commie-La and ChiComTimpon, the Enemedia (including ABC) are traitors to the United States of America.
Buy anything ABC News says is like buying a $10.00 Rolex.
ABC should have brought in the Hollywood acting coach who helped her practice the debate script.
You CANNOT TRUST ABC NEWS. FAKE NEWS AND DEMOCRATS.
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.