Up next in 10
Dive into the stunning findings from our bias analysis of the recent debate! Discover how moderators treated Trump and Harris differently, revealing potential unfairness that has everyone talking! Don't miss the eye-opening details! #DebateBias #TrumpVsHarris #PoliticalAnalysis #MediaScrutiny #Debate2024 #BiasDetection #ElectionInsights #FairDebate #JournalistAccountability #PoliticalDiscourse
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
hi everyone so we've all been talking
0:01
about the debate yesterday and the
0:04
perceived bias that the moderators had
0:07
against Trump I decided to take the
0:10
transcript of the entire debate and put
0:13
it into Chad GPT and see whether Chad
0:17
GPT detected any bias and the analysis
0:21
that I got was pretty shocking so take a
0:25
look now this is going to be a little
0:26
long so bear with me in the transcript
0:28
you provided there are are some points
0:30
where bias could potentially be inferred
0:33
though it is important to note that bias
0:34
detection can be subjective here are a
0:37
few instances that may suggest bias One
0:40
Tone in
0:42
questioning example one David mu's
0:45
question to Donald Trump regarding
0:47
January 6th you told your supporters to
0:50
March to the capital is there anything
0:52
you regret about what you did on that
0:54
day analysis the phrasing of this
0:57
question frames Trump's actions in a
0:59
negative light
1:00
suggesting direct responsibility for the
1:02
capital attack while January 6th is an
1:05
important event to question Trump on the
1:08
repeated framing of trump as the
1:09
instigator of the attack might suggest a
1:11
critical tone the absence of any
1:14
comparably critical or pointed questions
1:16
towards Harris might suggest an
1:19
imbalance example two David mu's
1:22
followup after Trump's defense on
1:23
January 6th new presses Trump on
1:26
personal responsibility for the attack
1:28
while Trump deflects by placing the
1:30
blame on Nancy Pelosi and the Washington
1:32
DC mayor new insists the question is
1:36
about you as president not about former
1:38
speaker Pelosi analysis mure continues
1:41
to steer the conversation toward Trump's
1:43
actions while allowing Harris Mor leeway
1:46
to respond to broader topics without
1:47
similar pressure two factchecking Trump
1:51
but not Harris example during the
1:55
discussion on Springfield Ohio David
1:57
mure interjects to clarify Trump's claim
1:59
about immigrants eating pets we did
2:02
reach out to the city manager of
2:03
Springfield he told us there have been
2:05
no credible reports of specific claims
2:08
of pets being harmed injured or
2:11
abused analysis M quickly fact checks
2:14
Trump's more outlandish Claim about
2:16
Springfield while factchecking is part
2:18
of a moderator's role there's no
2:20
evidence in the transcript that the
2:21
moderators similarly fact checked any
2:23
claims made by Harris if Trump's
2:26
statements are scrutinized more
2:27
rigorously than Harris that might
2:29
suggest an element of bias three lack of
2:33
follow-up questions for Harris example
2:36
when Harris was asked about her stance
2:38
on an abortion ban the moderator asked
2:41
would you support any restrictions on a
2:43
woman's right to an abortion Harris
2:45
responded broadly by discussing row v
2:47
Wade without directly answering whether
2:49
she supported any specific
2:52
restrictions analysis the moderators did
2:54
not press Harris for a clear yes or no
2:57
answer or a follow-up question which
2:59
contrast with the way they pressed Trump
3:01
on certain topics such as January 6th or
3:04
his views on Ukraine four closing
3:07
statement framing example in the closing
3:11
statements David mure sets up Harris by
3:14
thanking her first and allowing her to
3:16
outline her vision Trump follows with a
3:18
pointed response about what she hasn't
3:20
accomplished during her time as vice
3:22
president which could easily appear more
3:24
combative analysis while the candidates
3:27
are responsible for their statements the
3:29
structure of allowing Harris to go first
3:32
and Trump to follow may have given
3:33
Harris an advantage in presenting
3:35
herself as the more positive
3:36
forward-looking candidate leaving Trump
3:39
in the role of Defense conclusion while
3:41
overt bias is not immediately apparent
3:44
there are instances where the moderators
3:45
may have pressed Trump harder on his
3:47
controversial statements or actions
3:49
while allowing Harris Mor leeway in
3:51
answering difficult questions the
3:53
disparity in the number of follow-ups
3:55
tone in questioning and factchecking
3:57
suggests that Trump may have faced a
3:59
more iCal approach this could create the
4:01
perception of bias especially if one
4:03
candidate is scrutinized more intensely
4:05
than the
4:06
other so this analysis proves
4:10
definitively that there was bias against
4:13
Trump and all the bias went in favor of
4:18
Harris and so all the people claiming
4:21
that there wasn't any bias are lying to
4:24
you this was a three-on-one event it
4:27
should be clear to everyone that this
4:30
was not a fair representation of how
4:33
journalists are supposed to behave and
4:36
because of the blatant bias The
4:38
Narrative has turned against ABC and
4:42
Camala Harris will not see a bump
4:46
because of this that's my prediction
#Computers & Electronics
#Politics
#Campaigns & Elections
#Media Critics & Watchdogs