CBS doesn’t seem to know what the word “impartial” means. While praising singer and Harris supporter Taylor Swift for telling people to register to vote, CBS Mornings co-host and Kamala Harris-donor Gayle King proclaimed that she, her co-hosts, and the network don’t just “try to remain impartial,” but that they actually “are impartial.”
Co-host Nate Burleson tried to suggest that Swift’s endorsement of Harris wasn’t a way to sway the people she was telling to register to vote. King added that Swift was being impartial like they do:
BURLESON: It was basically saying, go out there and vote. Here`s my opinion on what`s going on.
KING: Yes, she is not telling you who to vote for though.
BURLESON: Yes.
KING: She is saying do your own research.
BURLESON: And we respect that around here.
KING: Yes, we do.
BURLESON: As much as we try to remain impartial.
All right, so there is controversy —
KING: We don’t try to remain impartial.
BURLESON: We do.
KING: We do.
BURLESON: We do.
KING: We are impartial.
BURLESON: 100 — we are. 100 percent, Gayle.
KING: Yes, yes.
As NewsBusters has previously reported about King, over the course of a couple years, she had donated a total of $9,000 to Harris’s campaigns in California (that’s not to mention the fact that her donations were exclusively to Democrats).
King defended Swift from Republican Senator and vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance, mischaracterizing what he said about her. “I actually heard somebody, I think it was J.D. Vance said, it doesn`t matter, you know, because she is a billionaire and she is out of touch. Meanwhile, your running mate is a billionaire, and a celebrity as well,” she falsely suggested.
She, Burleson, and Tony Dokoupil mocked him for having a celebrity billionaire running mate:
BURLESON: Yes, I think he said a celebrity billionaire.
KING: Yes, a celebrity billionaire.
DOKOUPIL: Yes, and there are people who are —
KING: Along with your running mate — whatever a billionaire.
“It sounds like projection a little bit,” Burleson chided.
In reality, Vance’s light criticism was just him pointing out that billionaires don’t actually feel the economic hardship average Americans do since they have a lot of money. Some could also argue that people who have $9,000 to spend on political campaigns are kind of in the same boat.
It’s also worth noting that this proclamation of impartiality came a day after these same purported journalists all but endorsed Harris themselves following the debate and Swift’s support.
The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:
CBS MorningsSeptember 13, 20247:49:16 a.m. Eastern
NATE BURLESON: So, let`s start with the Taylor Swift surge.
The pop star, she urged her fans to register to vote at vote.gov after she endorsed Kamala Harris for president on Tuesday. Vote.gov, says more than 405,000 people visited the website after Swift`s post.
The site only had — check this out – 30,000 visitors a week before.
TONY DOKOUPIL: Whoa. Whoa.
GAYLE KING: Wow.
BURLESON: That is wild to me.
KING: Yes.
BURLESON: All right, so the CEO of the nonprofit vote.org says Swift`s impact on voter engagement is undeniable because people were like, ‘well, what does it matter?’
KING: ‘Celebrity endorsements don`t make a difference.’
BURLESON: ‘She`s a pop star. Who cares?’ It makes a big difference.
KING: Yes. I actually heard somebody, I think it was J.D. Vance said, it doesn`t matter, you know, because she is a billionaire and she is out of touch. Meanwhile, your running mate is a billionaire, and a celebrity as well.
BURLESON: Yes, I think he said a celebrity billionaire.
KING: Yes, a celebrity billionaire.
DOKOUPIL: Yes, and there are people who are —
KING: Along with your running mate — whatever a billionaire.
BURLESON: It sounds like projection a little bit.
KING: Yes.
DOKOUPIL: There are people who are afraid of fuller participation in our democracy. I think more people voting and making their voices heard is a good thing.
KING: Yes.
BURLESON: That`s right.
KING: I do, too.
BURLESON: And the way she did it.
DOKOUPIL: Yes.
BURLESON: It was basically saying, go out there and vote. Here`s my opinion on what`s going on.
KING: Yes, she is not telling you who to vote for though.
BURLESON: Yes.
KING: She is saying do your own research.
BURLESON: And we respect that around here.
KING: Yes, we do.
BURLESON: As much as we try to remain impartial.
All right, so there is controversy —
KING: We don’t try to remain impartial.
BURLESON: We do.
KING: We do.
BURLESON: We do.
KING: We are impartial.
BURLESON: 100 — we are. 100 percent, Gayle.
KING: Yes, yes.
BURLESON: Way to correct me.
(…)
For more trending news articles like this, visit DeFi Daily News.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the discussion on impartiality and political endorsements highlighted the complexities of media bias and influence. While individuals like Taylor Swift can use their platform to encourage civic engagement, the perception of impartiality in media reporting remains a contentious issue. The dynamics of wealth and celebrity in politics further complicate these discussions, as seen in the reactions to J.D. Vance’s comments.
Ultimately, the role of the media in shaping public opinion and discourse is crucial, emphasizing the need for transparency and critical analysis of news sources. As viewers and readers, it is important to engage with information critically and consider the various perspectives presented in the media landscape.
