Tuesday night’s presidential debate was expected to be a crucial opportunity for the candidates to present competing visions for the future of America. However, what unfolded was one of the most controversial debates in recent memory, marred by personal attacks, media bias accusations, and a lack of substantive discourse.
Kamala Harris, who appeared well-rehearsed, stuck closely to her memorized soliloquies throughout the night. Rather than engaging directly with the questions posed to her, she seemed more focused on provoking Donald Trump with a series of pointed remarks aimed squarely at his ego. Harris’s approach appeared calculated to distract and unsettle her opponent, baiting Trump instead of providing detailed responses to the pressing issues facing the country.
Donald Trump, for his part, fell for the bait time and again. Instead of shifting the conversation to the broader, more significant challenges America faces, he appeared fixated on responding to Harris’s barbs. His attention seemed drawn to trivial details and personal grievances, as he became embroiled in defending his own record, leaving little room for a deeper discussion of policy. While Harris targeted his weaknesses, Trump focused on the immediate provocation, missing the chance to present a compelling alternative vision for the nation.
Beyond the candidates’ performances, the moderators also came under fire for their handling of the debate. Many critics pointed to a clear bias in their approach, with the ABC moderators frequently fact-checking Trump in real-time—often inaccurately—while appearing to ignore several misleading or false claims made by Harris. The debate’s framing and tone led to widespread accusations that the media, particularly the moderators, were aligned more closely with Harris’s campaign.
This perceived bias extended beyond the debate stage, with the post-debate analysis echoing the same sentiments. Prominent media figures, such as Daniel Dale on CNN, claimed that Trump made 33 false statements during the debate, while Harris made only one. Such a stark contrast raised eyebrows and fed into ongoing claims that mainstream media outlets were not impartial referees but rather active participants in shaping the public narrative around the election.
Critics argue that this imbalance stifled the potential for a meaningful exchange of ideas. Instead of allowing the candidates to delve into complex issues like the economy, healthcare, or foreign policy, the debate became bogged down in personality politics and media-driven fact-checking. The moderators, rather than facilitating a robust and balanced discussion, seemed more concerned with aligning themselves with elite media consensus. This left viewers with the impression that the debate was less about policy and more about scoring points within the bubble of mainstream media approval.
In the end, what could have been a defining moment for the 2024 presidential race ended in frustration for many viewers. The absence of a substantive debate on key issues and the overshadowing presence of perceived media favoritism cast a long shadow over the night. Instead of a clash of ideas, the event devolved into a battle of personalities, with the media’s role coming under as much scrutiny as the candidates themselves.
