Megyn Kelly, the host of Sirius XM, voiced strong disapproval during the recent presidential debate.
Kelly criticized the moderators, appointed by ABC News, for alleged bias favoring Democratic nominee Kamala Harris against Republican nominee Donald Trump, Daily Caller reported.
The debate, held in Philadelphia, was moderated by ABC's David Muir and Linsey Davis. Echoing Kelly, Donald Trump took to Truth Social to declare the moderation unfair, further accusing the moderators of favoring Harris explicitly.
Kelly suggested that the moderators were influenced by Disney executive Dana Walden, known for her long-standing ties and contributions to Harris’s political campaigns. Despite ABC News' stance that Walden does not impact editorial decisions, Kelly argued that the moderators’ actions suggested otherwise.
Kelly pointed out the conspicuous alignment of the moderators with Harris, perceiving it as a concerted effort against Trump. She remarked, “It’s very easy to look like you know what you’re doing when both moderators are entirely on your side.”
Kelly’s description of the debate painted a vivid picture: “Trump did the best he could under the circumstances, but it was like three fighters in the ring pummeling one opponent. And Trump tried to take them all on.”
Kelly denounced the moderators' conduct as trying to "do Dana Walden’s bidding," which she characterized as three against one, openly working to undermine Trump in favor of Harris. Trump bolstered this sentiment with his own critiques, voicing his frustration on social media and alleging that the moderators actively worked against him, stating, “They’re trying to steal this election. They’re openly working to sink him.”
In addition, Kelly’s fiery critique extended to ABC’s David Muir during the debate, accusing him of dropping his neutrality. “Who gives a shit what you heard?” she cited him as saying, an approach she found unprofessional and biased on a debate stage.
Facing the accusations of bias, ABC News has yet to directly address the claims made by Kelly and Trump regarding the conduct of the debate moderators. Meanwhile, the situation has seemingly emboldened calls for a reevaluation of moderator selection in future political debates.
Reflecting on these events, Kelly implied a loss in journalistic integrity, advising the Republican party to take caution in future engagements. “The Republicans must learn from this mistake, the same way the Democrats never, ever agree to do anything with moderators they don’t entirely trust,” she stated. Furthermore, the accusations of bias laid out by Kelly and Trump have ignited conversations about the responsibilities of debate moderators and the influence of media in political campaigns.
Historically, records show that the association between Dana Walden and Kamala Harris dates back to the 1990s, with Walden’s political contributions to Harris’s campaigns becoming more prominent in the early 2000s. This long-standing relationship has now come under scrutiny amid the debate controversy.
As a result, the fallout from the debate has exposed sharp divisions regarding media fairness and political influence. As both parties navigate the aftermath, the focus intensifies on how media outlets and their associations may impact the democratic process.
In conclusion, the debate in Philadelphia has not only highlighted critical issues of media bias and electoral integrity but also underscored a profound distrust in the impartiality of debate moderators, which could influence the strategies of political parties in future electoral engagements.
