Kamala’s CBS editors made her sound semi-coherent
We now have have the unedited footage of Kamala Harris’ 60 Minutes interview.
It’s about what you’d except. Instead of relatively succinct – although nevertheless vague – answers, we have meandering, lengthy, vague and often meaningless responses. Plus, some of the worst ones were left out. CBS edited the interview to make her look better, but even then she didn’t look good.
Here’s an article that describes some of the cuts.
And here’s the original:
Here’s an example of her answering the “why do you want to be president?” question:
C-BS ‘News’ employs garbage people paid to lie for the Democratic Party. So do the other networks. It wasn’t exactly on the square in 1979, but it did employ actual reporters who were not extensions of the DNC press office.
I was kind of underwhelmed, wasn’t really seeing anything in the unedited CBS interview that matched her really word-salady stuff. Sure, she bloviated, meaningless generalities, but nothing outside one standard deviation for Senators. She wasn’t crisp, that’s for sure.
how close we were
“1988: Journalistic Malpractice: The Need for a Professional Standard of Care in Defamation Cases”
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1752&context=mulr
If intentionally and gravely misleading the public in a Presidential election doesn’t demonstrate the need for a criminal charge of Journalistic Malpractice, then what would qualify? And if the media is permitted to lie without consequence, then what public service do they provide?
End all public funding for NPR and PBS until such a rigorous standard is passed into federal law.