Unedited ’60 Minutes’ Kamala Interview Proves Again The Democrat 2024 Campaign Was A Media-Driven Psyop
By: Eddie Scarry
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It's been three months since the election, and there are still so many unanswered questions as to what exactly happened in the very obvious partnership that took place between the dying national news media and the Kamala Harris campaign. But a little more clarity was offered this week when Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, released the full nearly hour-long interview CBS "60 Minutes" aired with Harris several weeks before Election Day.
The disclosure of the raw footage came as CBS cooperated with a complaint to the FCC from the Center for American Rights, a right-leaning law firm that accused the network of news distortion. The allegation followed a discrepancy observers noted between the short tease that CBS released in advance of the full "60 Minutes" episode and the final cut that aired and showed Harris offering a different answer to the same question.
What we know now is that CBS's original explanation for the issue, that it merely used a separate portion of a longer answer in the production that went to air, is true. But that doesn't clear the network of its questionable decision to clean up not only that newsworthy portion of the interview, in which Harris's fuller answer is hysterically confused, but in other parts, too.
Another highly suspect omission from the final cut was an extended portion in which Harris wasn't asked some convoluted question on geopolitical matters or macro economics, but on why she wants to be president. "There are many reasons but probably, um, first and foremost, I truly believe in the promise of America," she droned in an alarmingly slow cadence. "I do. And I love the American people. You know, we are a people who have ambition and aspirations and dreams and optimism and hope."
Without even being able to see interviewer Bill Whitaker, you can feel his eyes mentally rolling to the back of his skull. The portion was surely nixed for its banality, but it's a fundamental question the average voter would want an answer to, regardless of whether Harris has a deeply superficial, deeply boring answer.
In another portion, Whitaker asks another obvious one — what was Harris's explanation for changing her position to the opposite of her previous stances on virtually every major issue.
Here's what "60 Minutes" included from that answer:
"In the last four years I have been vice president of the United States and I have been traveling our country and I have been listening to folks and seeking what is possible in terms of common ground. I believe in building consensus. We are a diverse people — geographically, regionally, in terms of where we are in our backgrounds and what the American people do want is that we have leaders who can build consensus. Where we can figure out compromise and understand it's not a bad thing as long as you don't compromise your values to find common sense solutions. And that has been my approach."
But what "60 Minutes" ultimately aired was actually a spliced and diced mashup of two separate answers that Kamala offered, first to the direct question as to why her positions have changed and then to a follow up question about whether it was a matter of "evolution or, as your critics say, opportunism."
The program did not air the more critical follow-up question and omitted most of what Harris said in response to the initial one, including a flippant remark wherein she said, "First of all, a lot of the positions that you're talking about have been discussed and dispensed with in 2020, four years ago."
Instead of including that bit, which suggests an admission by Harris that she had simply abandoned past policy positions without needing a reason (no biggie!), "60 Minutes" solely used the more positive portion about "building consensus."
At the time of the initial controversy over the one editing discrepancy last year, CBS refused to release both the full transcript and footage of the interview, something it routinely did voluntarily with interviews otherwise. Of course not. The election wasn't over yet, and the media was still engaged in a psychological operation against the voters in an attempt to convince them she was something she never was.
Taunting, spamming, and off topic comments will be removed at the discretion of group mods.
NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, reply to themselves or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted.
Quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
Calling members "trolls", "dishonest", references to "MAGA", fascism, memes, personal insults and death wishing will result in your comment being deleted.
All of NT's rules apply
Tags
Who is online
45 visitors
So the President WAS right that CBS aired a badly edited version of the Harris interview.
I couldn't force myself to watch....
CBS Released the Unedited Kamala Harris Interview. It's Beyond Brutal.
And someone kept telling us that she was a "normal" democrat candidate, the really, really sad thing is he is probably right. Bumbling fool may very well be the normal democrat candidate.
Yes. I watched it last night. They showed Kamala telling lies and they deleted her being confronted with the truth.
One thing that was common to both were her word salads.
Let us hope they run her again.
Can we all agree that this is "old news" and move on?
Trump won and is hte president - whatver strategy and tactics Harris employed - it failed.
Why let them keep getting away with it?
The phrase "beating a dead horse" comes to mind
It makes people think that those who harp on the same issues from the past (left and right) have little of value to contribute to the present
It is not left and right. It is the radical left vs the people of the United States.
So since it is the "radical left" that continues to beat the drums of old no longer relevant issues that would make you the radical left, correct?
Not moving on. This is what the Democrats installed as a candidate. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean everybody else feels the same.
She lost this is the epitome of "old news"
There are real problems facing the nation and the world right now - focus on those rather than continually presenting "re-runs" of politics gone wrong
The idiots that installed, supported her and voted for her are part of the problems facing the nation.
Now, just because YOU don't want to recognize that isn't really my problem.
Jeremy
And using to deflect from some of the dumb shit Trump is doing and saying, e.g. taking over Gaza and turning it into a resort, trying to victimize FBI agents for doing their jobs, trying to destroy the FBI and CIA through "forced" retirements, and the absolute idiots that are being considered and confirmed in some cases for the cabinet, Trump plans to rename the Gulf, take over the Panama canal, buy Greenland, are the real problems facing the country
And if you don't want to recognize that - that is not my problem
As you attempt to derail to unrelated nonsense. Keep on topic.
[✘]
The release of the total interview is not old news. I do agree that it should die in a day or two but bringing it up now and in future election aspirations she may have is fair game IMO.
Her future political aspirations were toast the day after the election
She will be the next Governor of California, because there are more takers than producers in California, and the Nuevo rich who will support her can afford to make ignorant choices like voting for her.
You would think, but I am not so sure.
She's the current front runner for the democrats in 2028, by a wide margin. Until that's no longer true , her aspirations are definitely not toast.
"Opinions vary".
If CBS was willing to cut & paste to influence public opinion for Kamala Harris then what prevents the same sort of editorial bias toward other public figures? The bias means that CBS journalism cannot be trusted.
The issue of interest now is how CBS uses editing to influence public opinion. While the interview with Kamala Harris provides evidence, the story is not about Kamala Harris. The story is about the biased journalism practiced by CBS.
Just more proof that she is a mess and was not fit to be the president. She obviously has issues with coherent sentences and the press should be ashamed to be part of the attempted coverup.
Those insisting she was fit owe the American people an apology.
It is also proof that those that installed her are out of touch with the rest of the country.
Yeah, we both know that will never happen. Funny enough those that insisted that have been crying about the current POTUS since the 2016 election.
Very true. But it was obvious when Biden had his terrible outing in the debate and had to drop out that she would be made the torch bearer. There was too much money in the campaign that only she could touch. Had anybody else gotten the nomination they would have lost a bit more than a quarter billion dollars if I remember correctly.
Just more proof that he is a mess and not fit to be the president. He obviously has issues with coherent sentences and the press should be ashamed to be part of the attempted coverup. Those insisting he was (is) fit owe the American people and the world an apology!
One of the most worthless articles I've ever seen on Newstalkers.
I read the article, including Harris quotes, and will someone please tell me what wrong with or dumb about anything she said.
Trump ran the most bizarre and bufoonish presidential campaign in American history
See my 3.2