CBS News Implies Kamala Harris Should Be Exempt From Criticism

Tim Graham / July 24, 2024

The bitter Sunday afternoon announcement that President Joe Biden would end his reelection bid spurred hours of live network television coverage. With all that time to talk, it was guaranteed that the TV newsers would start worrying out loud about a new Kamala Harris presidential campaign.

CBS News really demonstrated the protective liberal urges. The news wasn’t two hours old before Robert Costa warned that the Republican attacks were going to be “rough-and-tumble like we’ve never seen it.”

Costa received a text from Donald Trump Jr. “already attacking Vice President Harris, saying she owns the entire policy of President Biden, [is] even more liberal, and he’s saying she’s not competent!”

Stop. What in that statement is rougher than we’ve ever seen? The Democrats and their staunch media allies compare Donald Trump to Hitler and other mass-murdering dictators. They explicitly call him an “existential threat” to democracy. How is it then “rough” to say Harris is ultraliberal and incompetent?

The impression you get is that attacking Harris is exponentially worse because she’s a “woman of color.” She’s automatically “historic,” which apparently means “beyond criticism.”

“CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell joined in: “I remember the 2020 Republican National Convention, not the one we had last week, but in 2020 and the attacks against Kamala Harris then were very, very personal.”

But I can’t find any Harris attacks in the 2020 speeches of Trump or Mike Pence or Nikki Haley or even Donald Trump Jr., let alone a “personal” attack.

“Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan then uncorked this whopper: “I can only imagine that, and a woman at the top of the ticket will take slings and arrows that a male candidate won’t. That’s just the facts and we know it.”

Once again, in 2016, journalists such as Carl Bernstein called Trump a “neo-fascist sociopath.” How is a “male candidate” somehow getting it easy? But suggesting Harris makes “word salads” or “cackles” is just beyond the pale!

An hour later, O’Donnell repeated the theme, talking about Hillary Clinton and Trump in 2016: “It was personal. He called her nasty, he called her a lot of other words. I wonder whether those same types of attacks would work in 2024? There will be a different dynamic running against a black woman.”

Let’s repeat: “Nasty” is less harsh than “authoritarian” or “Hitler.”

In her 2016 convention speech, Clinton said Trump didn’t have the temperament to be president: “Donald Trump can’t even handle the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign.” Today, CBS feels the need to protect Harris from the slightest rumble.

Four hours after Biden withdrew from the race, O’Donnell recounted talking to a top Democratic strategist who said, “They are eager to have Vice President Harris run against, in their words, a convicted rapist.” That could be described as “very, very personal.”

It also can be described as false. In a civil trial—with no real requirement of evidence—a jury of New York City Democrats found Trump liable for sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll, but not rape. (Naturally, they didn’t mention that Carroll also claimed in 2019 that she was assaulted by Les Moonves, the longtime CEO at CBS.)

O’Donnell said she told this Democrat strategist to recall Trump running against Hillary, and wondered: “How will suburban women in 2024 react to attacks on the first woman of color to lead a party’s ticket?”

She’s suggesting it’s political suicide to criticize Harris because of her race and gender. This is coming from journalists, who are supposed to be about accountability and democracy.

At every turn, the media make plain they are about damaging Republicans and helping Democrats.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.