Mark Penn, once an influential advisor to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, has expressed his views on ABC’s need for an internal inquiry regarding its news division’s performance during the recent presidential debate. The focus of his concern centers on the seeming imbalance in the fact-checking of statements from Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
ABC News found itself in the crosshairs of critics from both ends of the political spectrum due to this perceived imbalance. The critique lodged against the moderators of the debate was their hyper-critical approach to President Trump’s statements, with oddly no examination of the Vice President Kamala Harris’s statements.
President Trump voiced his belief that he faced a disproportionate challenge during the debate, labeling it a three-to-one battle. This sentiment led him to eschew the idea of participating in another round before the election. The moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, managed the first debate between Harris and Trump, which drew an impressive audience of 67.1 million viewers.
This viewership count earmarked the debate as the most witnessed since 2008, yet it also stirred controversy across both political alliances. Accusations of biased representation were rampant, leading many to question the impartiality of the moderating team.
The need for a thorough internal investigation led by an external law firm was among Penn’s proposals voiced on the ‘John Solomon Reports’ podcast. He expressed uncertainty about the degree of premeditation coming from ABC news, and whether they had had any preliminary discussions with the Harris campaign.
The day after the debate, suspicions and doubts had reached an all-time high. Penn suggested that to ensure transparency, an independent party should examine all internal texts and emails.
Penn, serving as the chairman of the Harvard CAPS Harris Poll, praised Harris’s effort in portraying Trump as the incumbent and herself as the torchbearer of change, even in her vice-presidential role. However, he found the broader media coverage of Harris’s campaign farcical.
Analyzing the race, Penn argued that it’s balanced on the edge of the knife. Trump, Penn acknowledges, has more transparent means to reach electoral victory. However, a perceived undue influence by the media makes it tough for Trump’s message to overcome this bias and reach voters.
Penn, who is also a managing partner of The Stagwell Group, proposed that the Trump campaign show every voter the ACLU questionnaire that Harris, then a senator from California, completed. This document reportedly stated her support for gender surgery for illegal immigrants and advocated for defunding the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
There have also been revelations of a potentially improper friendship between Harris and Dana Walden, who is co-chairman of Disney and oversees ABC News. Harris is reported to have characterized their relationship as ‘extraordinary friends’, pointing to their shared neighborhood in Brentwood, a high-end Los Angeles enclave.
A detailed examination by The New York Times revealed that Walden and Harris have not just been neighbors, but donors and receivers too. The report highlighted that The Waldens are long-term donors to Harris’s political career, dating back to 2003 at the least when she bid for the district attorney role in San Francisco.
Links between Harris and ABC News have been revealed by other publications as well, which ABC News seems to have neglected to disclose. ABC News debate moderator, Linsey Davis, has made no secret of her sororal ties with Harris, a fact she proudly shared live on ABC’s coverage of the Biden Inauguration in 2021.
But Mark Penn isn’t sole in his critique. Notable Democratic pollster and advisor, Doug Schoen, also showed consternation over the debate’s moderation. Schoen, an advisor to President Clinton and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, expressed disappointment that Harris appeared ‘helped’ by the two ABC News moderators who incessantly fact-checked nearly everything said by Trump.
This slew of revelations and criticisms underscores the importance of impartiality in political discussions and the crucial nature of fair and equal treatment for all participants in debates and political discourse. The perceived lack thereof during this particular presidential debate has sparked conversations and calls for investigations that could reshape future practices and approaches.
Ultimately, while these allegations remain to be proven, the controversy surrounding this debate offers a critical reminder of the central role the media plays in shaping public opinion and the way populations perceive their leaders. In the interest of transparent, fair, and balanced reporting, such concerns must be adequately acknowledged and addressed by ABC and indeed all news organizations.