During Tuesday night’s presidential debate, an apparent discrepancy in ABC News’ moderation approach has sparked discussions of bias.
Moderators Linsey Davis and David Muir fact-checked former President Donald Trump seven times but did not fact-check Vice President Kamala Harris even once, raising questions about the fairness in journalistic standards applied during the debate.
The fact-checks directed at Trump often appeared incorrect or incomplete.
For instance, Linsey Davis interjected to correct Trump, stating, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” Many conservatives contest this point based on varied state laws and interpretations.
Similarly, David Muir’s corrections ranged from clarifying Trump’s comments about crime rates in Springfield, Ohio, to challenging his views on election results and interactions with foreign leaders, such as Vladimir Putin.
Vice President Harris made several significant claims that went unchecked.
She incorrectly stated, “The Trump administration resulted in a trade deficit — one of the highest we’ve ever seen in the history of America,” whereas records show that the deficits were higher during other administrations, including under George W. Bush and currently under Biden-Harris.
Harris also claimed, “We have had the largest increase of domestic oil production in history,” a statement contradicting their well-documented policies aimed at reducing domestic oil and gas production.
The selective fact-checking and omission of responses to Harris’s contentious claims have led to criticisms of ABC News for exhibiting a one-sided approach that may have influenced viewer perceptions unfairly.
“The question was about you as president, not about Former Speaker Pelosi. But I do want Vice President Harris to respond here,” Muir directed at Trump, further highlighting the uneven moderation.
Critics argue that such disparities in handling presidential candidates could undermine the media’s role in providing balanced and impartial information during critical electoral events.
“President Trump, thank you. You did bring up something, you said she went to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Vice President Harris, have you ever met Vladimir Putin, can you clarify tonight?” Muir’s follow-up to Trump underscores a perceived alignment with challenging only one side’s narrative.
According to a recent report by MRC NewsBusters, David Muir has recently provided favorable coverage of Harris, whereas his coverage of Trump has been predominantly negative.
This perceived bias comes at a time when trust in media is crucial, especially in an election year.