Kamala Harris recently appeared on ’60 Minutes’, showcasing her glaring lack of knowledge and sparking widespread criticism. It was shocking to witness a major party candidate display such a troubling degree of incompetence. The prevailing opinion of her baffling performance was summed up well by Donald Trump, who described it as the ‘WORST interview’ ever seen by many.
Throughout her time on the show, the presumptive Vice Presidential candidate seemed unable to competently address any serious topic brought to the table. From the border policies of the Biden administration to Harris’s economic platform, questions were met with unease, uncertainty, and a shiftiness which provided no confidence in their ability to lead.
It is worrying what this suggests about the prospective Biden administration. If the candidate for Vice Presidency can’t stand up to scrutiny, how can we trust them to govern in a time of crisis? It’s a disconcerting indication of the potential future under their rule.
It appears that Kamala Harris has limited herself to stepping into public sphere only when she anticipates friendly commentators and a lack of challenging questions. Rarely would she be seen in front of a neutral or challenging journalist. It brings to question the level of transparency we can expect from such a political figure.
On the other hand, Donald Trump’s campaign declined an invitation to ’60 Minutes’, citing issues with the program’s outright bias. The mainstream media portrays this as Trump backing out. However, by tackling the blatant media bias head-on, the President’s decision illustrates his refusal to pander to the agenda of biased journalism.
Trump’s spokesperson quickly debunked the ‘fake news’ story promoted by the media suggesting that the Trump campaign had agreed to an appearance. It was CBS’s desperate attempt to get an interview with Trump that was ignored, not the other way round. In the face of looming bias, opting out was the only logical choice.
The media speculation arose regarding Trump’s worries about the fact-checking of his interview. However, this skewed interpretation misrepresents Trump’s valid concerns about being subjected to biased scrutiny, while his opponents such as Biden and Harris continue to receive a pass.
In controversial fashion, Trump also turned down the invitation for a third presidential debate originally scheduled for Oct. 23. Critics, predictably, jumped on this to label him as the loser of previous encounters, however, it was more a case of strategic decision making, taking the fight to environments where his message won’t be distorted.
While Trump decides where to best use his time, Kamala Harris opted to use her platform on ’60 Minutes’ to advise voters to watch Trump’s rallies instead. The suggestion seemed less about offering transparency and more about diverting attention from the glaring issues within her own party.
Given her performance on ’60 Minutes’, it is clear that Harris is engrossed in attempting to create dismissive narratives about Trump. But one wonders why she can’t turn this same scrutiny towards herself or the apparent infallibility of the Biden Administration’s plans. Her approach only deepens the concern over the potential for a balanced and transparent administration.
The contrast between Harris’s inability to adequately engage in substantial conversations and Trump’s direct, no-nonsense communication style is striking. While Harris attempts to dodge difficult questions, Trump remains undeterred in his mission to address the concerns of the American people.
It’s rather unsettling that Harris, an individual who could potentially be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, can’t stomach decisive examination from the media, and instead uses a prestigious platform like ’60 Minutes’ to throw low blows and propagate narratives.
The ’60 Minutes’ episode was a stark illustration of the gulf in competence and ability between the Trump and Biden camps. While the Trump team stayed truthful to their commitment to objectivity and transparency, the Opposition appeared to use the platform as a conduit for spreading unwarranted criticism.
Ultimately, the media’s depiction of these events offers more evidence of their bias. Lamentably, critical analysis and fact-checking is applied unevenly – harsh against Trump, lenient with Harris.
What the nation needs now is truth, transparency, and integrity. As voters, we must look beyond the posh talk shows and carefully-constructed narratives of the mainstream media. It’s high time to consider which candidate truly has the nation’s interests at heart.