This raises an important question: Can we trust the media to remain impartial in such crucial moments, or are we witnessing a subtle yet dangerous manipulation of public opinion?
The Role of Moderators: bias or balanced?
One of the main points of contention from Tuesday's debate was the role of the moderators. Many neutral commentators observed a stark difference in how Kamala and Trump were treated throughout the night.
Tough follow-up questions were repeatedly directed at Trump, while Kamala was spared from the same level of scrutiny. Even when she made statements that could have been debated or required clarification, the moderators simply moved on, leaving her unchallenged.
In contrast, Trump was subjected to live fact-checking during the debate, which, although important for maintaining truth and transparency, raises the question:
Why wasn't the same treatment extended to Kamala? Fairness in a debate requires that both candidates are held to the same standard. The lack of follow-up questions for Kamala and the leniency shown toward her statements suggest an unbalanced approach, one that leaves audiences questioning whether the moderators were fulfilling their roles as neutral facilitators.
Did Kamala have an advantage?
Adding fuel to the fire are reports suggesting that Kamala had been given the debate questions in advance. Allegedly, she had practised with these questions for an entire week, and there are even rumours that the moderators helped her in her preparation.
If these claims hold any truth, it would explain her smooth, rehearsed responses, which came off more like PR sound bites than genuine debate answers.
Of course, candidates often prepare for debates, but having access to the actual questions in advance is a serious advantage, one that Trump evidently did not enjoy.
This creates an uneven playing field, one where Kamala was more polished because she knew what was coming, while Trump was left to react in real-time to a barrage of tough, often negative questions.
Is the 'Media bias' real?
Beyond the debate itself, the aftermath has been equally telling. Rumours have circulated that major media outlets, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN, had already prepared articles celebrating Kamala's victory days before the debate even took place.
This suggests not only media bias but a predetermined narrative that completely disregards the actual performance of both candidates.
It's no secret that many media houses have taken sides in the political arena, but the implications of this bias are profound. When media outlets align themselves so visibly with one candidate, they cease to be objective reporters of facts and instead become tools for influencing public opinion.
This leaves the public with a distorted version of reality, where the 'victory' of one candidate is decided before the debate even begins.
One of the reasons cited for this bias is the involvement of powerful financial interests. Companies like Vanguard and BlackRock, which hold significant shares in these media houses, are said to oppose Trump, largely because he is not seen as a puppet they can control.
Unlike Biden, and potentially Kamala, Trump is viewed as a wildcard, someone who doesn't follow the conventional political playbook. This creates tension with powerful interests that prefer predictability and control in the political sphere.
If media bias is driven by these financial influences, it paints a concerning picture of the role money plays in shaping political discourse. What we witness on our screens may not be a fair representation of events but rather a carefully crafted narrative designed to benefit certain political and financial players.
Manipulating public opinion
As if these issues weren't enough, there is also a brewing scandal about manipulated polls. Recent polling data, which seemed to indicate a surge in Kamala's popularity, is now being questioned.
Some allege that these polls were rigged to artificially boost her standing in the race, creating the illusion of widespread support. This would not be the first time polls have been used as tools to shape public perception rather than reflect reality.
Polling data can be a powerful psychological tool. When people believe that a candidate is more popular or more likely to win, they may feel inclined to support that candidate, whether or not they truly align with their policies.
This phenomenon, known as the bandwagon effect, is one of the many ways in which public opinion can be manipulated. If these allegations of rigged polls are true, it raises serious ethical questions about the integrity of the democratic process.
The Consequences of Media Bias
So, what are the broader implications of this media bias? For one, it undermines the very foundation of democracy, which relies on informed voters making decisions based on accurate and unbiased information.
When the media fails to provide that, or worse, when they intentionally distort the narrative to favour one candidate, it erodes public trust in both the media and the political process.
Moreover, this bias creates a polarizing effect, where supporters of the disadvantaged candidate (in this case, Trump) feel increasingly alienated and disenfranchised. This deepens divisions within society and contributes to the growing mistrust between the public and the institutions that are supposed to serve them.
The media's role in political debates should be to inform, not to influence. Tuesday's debate raises serious questions about whether the media is fulfilling this role or if they are now more interested in shaping the outcome of elections than in holding candidates accountable.
Voters deserve a level playing field, where each candidate is given the same opportunity to present their ideas and policies, free from bias and manipulation. Until we address these issues, we risk allowing powerful financial interests to decide the future of our democracy, rather than the people it is supposed to serve.
Sam K Nkurunziza
Source : https://en.igihe.com/opinion/article/unpacking-media-influence-in-the-kamala-vs-trump-showdown
