The CBS Debate Was a Gift to the Right Wing
The questions in last nights' VP debate were as biased as they come.
Last night, vice presidential candidates J.D. Vance and Tim Walz faced off in a televised debate moderated by CBS News’ Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan. Who won the debate is immaterial; the only people watching it had already made up their minds and neither man said anything particularly revelatory. Vance looked smoother on camera, Walz got some shots in, truly, who cares.
How these moments were constructed, however, is a bit more interesting. Campaigns and news organizations are constantly engaged in this shadow war of offers and counter-offers and ploys and schemes to engender the most friendly battleground for any given debate. The GOP always wants Fox to host, the Democrats would probably prefer MSNBC, usually they settle for someone like CNN, or in this case, CBS. Common wisdom is that the media has a liberal bias, something I think is largely a myth created by the fact that the nature of politics in America mean that general truth, decency, and a scrutiny of power is antithetical to the conservative moment. Most mainstream news organizations defer toward the U.S.’s perceived “center,” both because their leadership reflects that view AND because they are always willing to bend over backwards in order to dispel the myth of liberal bias. The result is questions like this (from the CBS transcript of the debate):
Margaret Brennan: Earlier today, Iran launched its largest attack yet on Israel. But that attack failed thanks to joint U.S. and Israeli defensive action. President Biden has deployed more than 40,000 U.S. military personnel and assets to that region over the past year to try to prevent a regional war. Iran is weakened, but the U.S. still considers it the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it has drastically reduced the time it would take to develop a nuclear weapon. It is down now to one or two weeks time. Governor Walz, if you are the final voice in the situation room, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran? You have two minutes.
A neutral question, right? Not really. Here are the assumptions the question makes: it takes for granted that the 40,000 U.S. personnel stationed in the Middle East are there to “try to prevent a regional war.” It begins the question with Iran’s latest round of attacks on Israel, which in this question’s framing happened in a vacuum, and not as a response to Israel’s airstrikes on Lebanese civilians and Iran’s Hezbollah proxies. This is the standard “what would you do about Iran” question, which is a valid one to ask people who may be in charge of the United States some day, but framed in such a way that there is almost no acceptable answer other than “back our brave ally Israel in any war of aggression that they may start.” Walz responded with some boilerplate drivel about Oct. 7 and then pivoted to attacking Trump. Off to a good start!
Here’s the next question of consequence:
Margaret Brennan: We're going to turn now to immigration. The crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border consistently ranks as one of the top issue for American voters. Senator Vance, your campaign is pledging to carry out the largest mass deportation plan in American history and to use the U.S. military to do so. Could you be more specific about exactly how this will work? For example, would you deport parents who have entered the U.S. illegally and separate them from any of their children who were born on U.S. soil? You have two minutes.
This question was directed at Vance, so it includes some necessary pointedness about the Trump administration’s absolutely barbaric plans for and past record on immigration. Sure. And yet, look at the actual question here: “Could you be more specific about exactly how this will work?” As in, this sounds great, J.D., but how will you pull it off? The second question asks about family separation, which was the Trump administration’s most visible perversion of the U.S.’ founding values on immigration, but the entire framing, again, takes for granted that immigration is a “crisis” and largely tees up a response that takes a mass deportation effort as a baseline for the solution.
And again:
Norah O’Donnell: Thank you, Margaret. The economy is a top concern for voters. Each of your campaigns has released an economic plan, so let's talk about the specifics. Governor Walz, Vice President Harris unveiled a plan that includes billions in tax credits for manufacturing, housing and a renewed child tax credit. The Wharton School says your proposals will increase the nation's deficit by $1.2 trillion. How would you pay for that without ballooning the deficit? Governor, I'll give you two minutes.
The Wharton School! Here we go! The question is immediately framed in a manner that suggests the national deficit is a pressing concern, and that it must be addressed before we can use the nation’s vast economic power to do things that actually help the people who live here. This is not a given in other schools of economic thought! “How will you pay for it?” is a question every Democrat has to be able to answer, but once again, the CBS moderators aren’t making it particularly subtle where they’re coming from.
And again!
Norah O’Donnell: Now to the issue of reproductive rights. Governor Walz, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made Minnesota one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion. Former President Trump said in the last debate that. You believe abortion, quote, in the 9th month is absolutely fine. Yes or no? Is that what you support? I'll give you two minutes.
Jesus Christ! “You believe abortion, quote, in the 9th month is absolutely fine.” As Walz immediately pointed out, that’s not what Minnesota’s bill says, nor is it anywhere near a nuanced way of asking if there are any moral reasons for late term abortions (such as to save the life of the mother). Walz’s response did a good job handling this, for the most part, but to a critical viewer, CBS’ question should have made your jaw drop.
So what do we make of all this? I wouldn’t put it to some big conspiracy. I’m not saying that Walz lost because the moderators were biased toward Vance. I don’t really care who won, I don’t really care about Walz’s performance on stage. That doesn’t matter. But we should take it as an early indicator of how the media would shift to cover a second Trump presidency, as a barometer of how quickly the framing on everyday issues can shift in order to accommodate a hard right party in power. The Overton window in America slides on perfectly-greased tracks to the right, and is far slower to go left. Every shitty question CBS News asks represents months of legislative and rhetorical work that any force on the left of the political spectrum will have to do to bring us back to some kind of better place. CBS, it’s pretty clear, will be working against that every step of the way.