Staff Reports
In a shocking twist that could not have been more anticipated, the cozy connections between Kamala Harris and ABC News have been unearthed, revealing a network of favors that would make any politically savvy American raise an eyebrow. It turns out that the very same executive at Disney who oversees ABC News, Dana Walden, is not only an old friend of the Vice President but also played matchmaker in her marriage to Doug Emhoff. It’s almost like a soap opera script, but in this case, the plot thickens right around election season.
This little nugget of information raises serious questions about the integrity of the upcoming presidential debate, which ABC News will host. For those keeping score, Walden first met Harris back in 1994. Since then, their friendship has flourished, with the duo’s husbands having known one another since the 1980s. The Waldens have been financially backing Harris’s political endeavors since her early days campaigning for district attorney in San Francisco. It’s safe to say that the ties that bind them aren’t just emotional; they’re also stitched together with cash donations and mutual back-scratching.
As the Onion Peels: Guess Who Introduced Commie Kamala to Her Husband?: RedState pic.twitter.com/EYsjIg2cCf
— Ian Hansen 🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@IanHansensX) September 11, 2024
During a recent fundraising event, Harris even joked—though there’s likely some truth behind the humor—that her relationship with Emhoff owes much to the Waldens’ matchmaking efforts. It’s quite the charming storyline, but when the same folks who set up your blind date maintain influence over the media that will be moderating your debate, there’s bound to be a few raised eyebrows. One has to wonder: how much have those friendship ties shaped the coverage and conditions surrounding the debate?
The debate in question—happening soon after all of this came to light—has already come under fire for an obvious bias in treatment. Coverage from conservative outlets suggests that while Harris was given the royal treatment, her opponents were not so lucky. If the moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, had been examining a piñata instead of debating candidates, it would have been a fairer show; they certainly wielded their bat against one while keeping the other unscathed. The “fix” feels robust, and it’s the hapless American electorate that stands to pay the price.
Naysayers can point to ABC’s claim that Walden doesn’t influence editorial decisions, but that statement would take a leap of faith to accept at face value. After all, how often do influential figures in corporate media ever truly recuse themselves from the affairs of their politically aligned friends? As Megyn Kelly astutely noted in her post-debate analysis, the moderators seemed to be operating on Walden’s unspoken orders, suggesting that Harris is cushioned from any real scrutiny due to longstanding relationships.
To cap this off for anyone still clinging to notions of impartiality in the mainstream media, the luxury wedding of Harris and Emhoff just might have had Walden in a featured role—possibly even as best man, though that remains unconfirmed for now. One thing is clear: the intertwining of corporate media, politics, and personal relationships makes it hard for the average American to trust that a fair debate will take place. With connections like these, the bias in moderation and coverage all but guarantee that the outcomes of their political games are scripted.
