Western Lensman
@WesternLensman
This clip may be the most egregious example of ABC debate moderators' direct actions/inactions to affect viewers’ perceptions of the information presented at the debate.
There are at least seven instances of this within a two-minute span.
This is not “bias."
It’s much worse.
This is direct, planned interference in the debate outcome. When moderators take on the role of “fact checkers" the inference is that the absence of a “fact check” confers validity to the non-fact-checked information.
When one side is repeatedly “fact checked,” while the other is not, that is a signal to the viewer that one side is not reliable and truthful, while the other side is.
The ABC moderators had their orders, and here you see those orders executed.
In this clip:
1) Trump says Pelosi is responsible for security at the Capitol. True. Muir intervenes on Kamala’s behalf by cutting him off with snarky retort, doesn’t acknowledging the validity of Trump’s statement, and immediately redirects to Kamala to set up her “answer" he knows is coming. This is direct action by Muir to affect the outcome of this exchange.
2) Kamala says she was at the Capitol on J6. She was there in the morning, but left to go to DNC HQ prior to the riot. Critical information is omitted. No fact-check.
3) Kamala says Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol. False. Trump’s “peacefully and patriotically” comments are ignored. Trump is not charged with inciting violence. No fact check.
4) Kamala says that “some" police officers died on January 6. False. No fact check.
5) Kamala recites the Charlottesville “Fine People” hoax. This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. No fact check.
6) Kamala recites the “stand back and stand by” hoax. This is designed to infer that Trump was ordering a “militia” to act on later orders, when he was clearly asking for a cooling of tensions. No fact check.
7) Kamala recites the “bloodbath" hoax. Trump was talking about the automobile industry, not violence. No fact check.
To quote Megyn Kelly on the ABC moderators:
"They did exactly what their bosses wanted."
由
翻译自 英语
这段视频可能是 ABC 辩论主持人直接采取/不作为行动影响观众对辩论中呈现的信息的看法的最恶劣例子。
在两分钟的时间内至少发生了七次这种情况。
这不是“偏见”。
情况更加糟糕。
这是对辩论结果的直接、有计划的干预。当主持人扮演“事实核查员”的角色时，可以推断，没有“事实核查”就赋予了未经事实核查的信息以有效性。
当一方被反复“事实核查”，而另一方却没有被核查时，这就向观众发出了一个信号，即一方不可靠、不真实，而另一方则是真实的。
ABC 主持人已收到命令，在这里您可以看到这些命令已得到执行。
在此片段中：
1) 特朗普称佩洛西负责国会大厦的安全。没错。穆尔代表卡玛拉进行干预，用尖刻的反驳打断了他的话，不承认特朗普声明的有效性，并立即将话题转向卡玛拉，为他知道的她的“答案”做准备。这是穆尔直接采取行动来影响这次交流的结果。
2) 卡玛拉说她当时在 J6 的国会大厦。她早上在那里，但在暴乱发生前离开去 DNC 总部。关键信息被省略。没有事实核查。
3) 卡玛拉称特朗普煽动暴徒袭击国会大厦。错误。特朗普的“和平爱国”言论被忽视了。特朗普没有被指控煽动暴力。没有事实核查。
4) 卡马拉称 1 月 6 日有“一些”警察死亡。这是假消息。未经核实。
5) 卡马拉背诵夏洛茨维尔“好人”骗局。这已被彻底和反复揭穿。无需事实核查。
6) 卡玛拉背诵“退后待命”的恶作剧。这是为了推断特朗普命令“民兵”按照后续命令采取行动，而他显然是在要求缓和紧张局势。没有事实核查。
7）卡玛拉背诵“大屠杀”骗局。特朗普谈论的是汽车行业，而不是暴力。没有事实核查。
引用梅根·凯利 (Megyn Kelly) 对 ABC 主持人的评论：
“他们确实按照老板的要求去做了。”
https://x.com/WesternLensman/status/1833869730735603919
@WesternLensman
This clip may be the most egregious example of ABC debate moderators' direct actions/inactions to affect viewers’ perceptions of the information presented at the debate.
There are at least seven instances of this within a two-minute span.
This is not “bias."
It’s much worse.
This is direct, planned interference in the debate outcome. When moderators take on the role of “fact checkers" the inference is that the absence of a “fact check” confers validity to the non-fact-checked information.
When one side is repeatedly “fact checked,” while the other is not, that is a signal to the viewer that one side is not reliable and truthful, while the other side is.
The ABC moderators had their orders, and here you see those orders executed.
In this clip:
1) Trump says Pelosi is responsible for security at the Capitol. True. Muir intervenes on Kamala’s behalf by cutting him off with snarky retort, doesn’t acknowledging the validity of Trump’s statement, and immediately redirects to Kamala to set up her “answer" he knows is coming. This is direct action by Muir to affect the outcome of this exchange.
2) Kamala says she was at the Capitol on J6. She was there in the morning, but left to go to DNC HQ prior to the riot. Critical information is omitted. No fact-check.
3) Kamala says Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol. False. Trump’s “peacefully and patriotically” comments are ignored. Trump is not charged with inciting violence. No fact check.
4) Kamala says that “some" police officers died on January 6. False. No fact check.
5) Kamala recites the Charlottesville “Fine People” hoax. This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. No fact check.
6) Kamala recites the “stand back and stand by” hoax. This is designed to infer that Trump was ordering a “militia” to act on later orders, when he was clearly asking for a cooling of tensions. No fact check.
7) Kamala recites the “bloodbath" hoax. Trump was talking about the automobile industry, not violence. No fact check.
To quote Megyn Kelly on the ABC moderators:
"They did exactly what their bosses wanted."
由
翻译自 英语
这段视频可能是 ABC 辩论主持人直接采取/不作为行动影响观众对辩论中呈现的信息的看法的最恶劣例子。
在两分钟的时间内至少发生了七次这种情况。
这不是“偏见”。
情况更加糟糕。
这是对辩论结果的直接、有计划的干预。当主持人扮演“事实核查员”的角色时，可以推断，没有“事实核查”就赋予了未经事实核查的信息以有效性。
当一方被反复“事实核查”，而另一方却没有被核查时，这就向观众发出了一个信号，即一方不可靠、不真实，而另一方则是真实的。
ABC 主持人已收到命令，在这里您可以看到这些命令已得到执行。
在此片段中：
1) 特朗普称佩洛西负责国会大厦的安全。没错。穆尔代表卡玛拉进行干预，用尖刻的反驳打断了他的话，不承认特朗普声明的有效性，并立即将话题转向卡玛拉，为他知道的她的“答案”做准备。这是穆尔直接采取行动来影响这次交流的结果。
2) 卡玛拉说她当时在 J6 的国会大厦。她早上在那里，但在暴乱发生前离开去 DNC 总部。关键信息被省略。没有事实核查。
3) 卡玛拉称特朗普煽动暴徒袭击国会大厦。错误。特朗普的“和平爱国”言论被忽视了。特朗普没有被指控煽动暴力。没有事实核查。
4) 卡马拉称 1 月 6 日有“一些”警察死亡。这是假消息。未经核实。
5) 卡马拉背诵夏洛茨维尔“好人”骗局。这已被彻底和反复揭穿。无需事实核查。
6) 卡玛拉背诵“退后待命”的恶作剧。这是为了推断特朗普命令“民兵”按照后续命令采取行动，而他显然是在要求缓和紧张局势。没有事实核查。
7）卡玛拉背诵“大屠杀”骗局。特朗普谈论的是汽车行业，而不是暴力。没有事实核查。
引用梅根·凯利 (Megyn Kelly) 对 ABC 主持人的评论：
“他们确实按照老板的要求去做了。”
https://x.com/WesternLensman/status/1833869730735603919
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment