Why would the debate moderators ask about Democrats inciting a would-be assassin when they can just keep recycling the lie that Trump incited a violent mob? //

Imagine refusing to ask the current vice president whether she regrets any of her hateful anti-Trump rhetoric and the Biden administration’s weaponization of the federal government against Trump that may have inspired an armed nutbag to fire at his head, but asking the former president whether he regrets “anything about what [he] did on” Jan. 6, 2021, even after he explicitly told his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” (Which David Muir lied about, by the way.) You don’t hate the media enough.

As Trump said at the debate, he “probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me. They talk about democracy. I’m a threat to democracy. They’re the threat to democracy.” Correct. And the moment Trump brought up that uncomfy assassination topic, Muir pivoted because, you know, the moderators “ha[d] a lot to get to.” //

If the debate did nothing else, it reminded us of their true colors. They aren’t biased. They don’t have a slant. ABC News and CNN and NBC and all the rest of the establishment media don’t “lean left.”

They are propagandists. They live and die for the regime. They are wholly and completely corrupt, a hostile force that exists to accrue power for Democrats.

On Friday, Axios finally noticed that Harris has been purposely avoiding them.

With 60 days left in the race, and at the very moment she's presenting a different ideology than four years ago, Vice President Kamala Harris isn't getting subjected to the media scrutiny typical for a presidential nominee.

Why it matters: Harris is copying President Biden's self-protection media strategy — duck tough interviews and limit improvisational moments. //

I'm not sure what's more frustrating. That Kamala Harris doesn't even have an official policy platform yet and early voting is already starting, or that the supposed news outlets are trying to play the victim in the face of that. If only there was a massive "fourth estate" with enormous, worldwide influence that could report honestly on Harris and pressure her into doing interviews and press conferences.

If you are to believe Axios' framing, they and other mainstream news sources are helpless. There's just nothing they can do. //

Do you know what the press could do if they want to make Harris speak clearly and publicly about her policy positions? They could stop publishing anonymous sources like the one cited above. Every single time an anonymous "aide" is allowed to change a Harris position with no further details or explanation, her campaign is given every incentive to continue hiding the candidate behind a teleprompter.

Republicans, you’re not going to best the anchor on the facts, because the anchors aren’t conceding any facts. The best you can do is beat them into submission. //

A conversation of “Yes, she was,” “No, she wasn’t” is useless and a wasted opportunity. Instead, there are two options for taking advantage of these little shows:

One is to force the trifling anchor to fully expose himself as a Democrat surrogate by demanding he explain and defend his counterpoint.

Senator Tom Cotton did this expertly in a recent interview with ABC’s Jonathan “Milhouse” Karl. When Karl attempted to run interference for Kamala by insisting Kamala no longer supports every godawful policy she professed to support and even aided in implementing as vice president, Cotton challenged Karl to show his math. “How do you know that’s not her position?” said Cotton in a way that kind of turns me on. “How do you know that’s not her position? She has not said that. She has not said that. She has not said that.” //

Karl went on to say on behalf of the Kamala campaign that the vice president is “clearly making an effort to move to the middle,” revealing whom he supports in this race and whom he believes needs help across the finish line.

At that point, Republicans, you can proceed to acknowledge that the anchor is here to assist Kamala, nothing more, and you can continue to make the points you want.

The second option is to aggressively confront every rebuttal sputtered by the anchor because the media collectively and individually have proven themselves to be irredeemable liars and fiends. Say so. They deserve it. The voters are on your side when you do. //

Why are you defending her?

Why are you speaking for her?

Why are you letting Kamala and the Democrats dictate your coverage?

Why are you trying to debate on their behalf?

If you want a debate, host one and demand that she be here to answer for herself, rather than you answering for her.

Why are you repeating her campaign’s lies, which you know are false, and which you refuse to “fact-check”?

Why do you apologize for her campaigners’ lies when they’re not here and then get snippy with me for rebutting them, even though I did you the courtesy of showing up while they refuse to answer your calls?

That news headline about presidential candidate Kamala Harris on your Google search results? It may have been written by her campaign.

Harris' team has been launching sponsored posts on Google that link to real news content from various publishers but feature customized headlines and descriptions crafted by her campaign, a practice experts and Google called "common." One sponsored ad that links to NPR’s website features the headline “Harris will Lower Health Costs.” Another that links to the Associated Press reads “VP Harris’s Economic Vision - Lower Costs and Higher Wages.” The advertisements were first reported by Axios.

While these sponsored posts have been used by other campaigns and comply with Google’s policies, some marketing experts worry they could fuel misinformation and distrust in the media. //

Google's ad transparency center shows a number of other publishers featured in Harris ads, including Reuters, Time, CNN, AP, the Independent, the Guardian and USA TODAY.

"We were not aware the Harris campaign was using our content in this manner,” said Lark-Marie Anton, spokesperson for USA TODAY parent company Gannett. “As a news organization, we are committed to ensuring that our stories are shared appropriately, adhering to the highest standards of integrity and accuracy." //

The Harris campaign declined to comment for this story. Donald Trump's campaign did not return a request for comment, but Google's ad transparency center did not show these types of ads from the former president's campaign. //

But even with a sponsored tag, the ads present a “significant ethical concern,” according to Colin Campbell, associate professor of marketing at the University of San Diego.

He said this is especially true when consumers fail to differentiate online ads.

“Many consumers might form opinions based solely on the altered headlines, without ever reading the actual articles,” Campbell said. “Even those who click through and read the articles may feel misled when they notice the discrepancy between the headline and the content, further eroding trust in the media.”

Journalist Olivia Nuzzi blew the lid off that narrative with a July 4 report titled “The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden” with the subheading, “The president’s mental decline was like a dark family secret for many elite supporters.” She's not known as a right-leaning author, and didn’t write this for RedState or any other conservative outlet—she penned it for New York Magazine, hardly a bastion of right-wing journalists.

But now she’s paying the price, according to Semaphore: //

“When I write something that agitates the right, I am accused of being a liberal activist. When I write something that agitates the left, I am accused of being a conservative activist. The difference is that mainstream media organizations tend to ignore bad-faith campaigns against reporters led by the right,” she observed.

She appears to be on the phone because she has an earbud in her ear and a long very visible wire to the phone. She waves quickly and dismissively at the press and then heads up into the plane. As she climbs the steps into the plane, she puts the phone to her ear.

It's actually that last part I find especially funny. Some people questioned whether people really use wired earbuds anymore. But if they were working and you were really on the phone with someone, why would you then need to put the phone to your ear? If she's actually talking on the phone at the top of the steps, why is the phone away from her mouth? It's like she was doubling down on the "I am on the phone" message to the media, sorry I'm just too busy to take any questions. //

mopani
a few minutes ago
She's not trying to avoid the press, she's giving the press plausible deniability for why they don't hound her for answers. Don't a bunch of them fly with her on the same plane? The whole charade is for the rubes, not the press corpse.