It’s no surprise anymore—mainstream media isn’t even pretending to be impartial. The blatant favoritism towards Democrats, especially figures like Kamala Harris, has been on full display for years. Whether it’s CNN, MSNBC, or any of the other major outlets, they’ll twist facts, massage narratives, and downplay controversies to protect their preferred candidates.

Just look at the endless praise Harris receives, regardless of her actual performance. This is a vice president whose approval ratings are in the gutter, yet she’s treated like political royalty. Meanwhile, conservatives are constantly vilified, and their every move is scrutinized. The mainstream media isn’t just biased—they’re activists masquerading as journalists.

What’s worse is they don’t even bother to hide it anymore. Gone are the days when these networks at least tried to maintain the illusion of balance. Now, they openly cater to their liberal audience, shaping stories to fit their agenda and silencing any dissent. It’s no wonder trust in the media is at an all-time low. Americans see through it, and they’re tired of the lies.

The coverage is so lopsided that when Republicans do anything remotely positive, it either gets buried or dismissed. But when a Democrat makes a gaffe, it’s quickly swept under the rug, with no follow-up questions. It’s a rigged game, and the media’s bias is on full display once again.

From Fox News:
MSNBC host Symone Sanders-Townsend criticized Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., for being too agreeable with his opponent Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, during the vice presidential debate on Tuesday…

“There were so many niceties on that debate stage tonight, I am just kind of like, well, if you agree so much with J.D. Vance, why should they vote for you?”

The Walz-Vance Debate: A Battle of Niceties?

This brings us to the recent vice presidential debate between Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. JD Vance, which aired Tuesday night. The showdown, which was supposed to highlight their ideological differences, ended up looking more like a polite tea party than a debate. And guess what? The liberal media had a meltdown over it.

MSNBC host Symone Sanders-Townsend was quick to criticize Walz for being too agreeable with Vance. In her eyes, it seems any semblance of bipartisanship is a betrayal. Why should Walz, a good Democrat, even think about agreeing with a Republican like JD Vance?

According to Sanders-Townsend, if the candidates share so much common ground, then why wouldn’t voters just support the Republican ticket? A fair question, though one could argue that maybe, just maybe, it’s because Americans are tired of constant bickering and are craving some level of civility.

But civility apparently isn’t on the agenda for the left. Sanders-Townsend seemed more concerned with performance than policy, suggesting that Walz needed to be more aggressive, more divisive. Why? Because according to the media, Democrats need to draw a hard line in the sand. Anything less is seen as weakness.

A Failed Media Narrative

But the narrative fell apart quickly. Walz, who many said appeared nervous and unpolished during the debate, simply couldn’t keep up with Vance’s more laid-back approach. Vance, taking what some called a “Midwestern nice” strategy, disarmed Walz and kept the tone light. This threw Walz off his game, making him seem defensive and uneasy.

Even commentators like Josh Barro, a liberal voice, admitted Vance was nimbler, especially in the early parts of the debate. The media tried to spin it, but the truth was clear: JD Vance was the more composed and confident candidate on that stage.

Alyssa Farrah Griffin, host of The View, even pointed out that Walz had opportunities to fact-check Vance but missed them. The performance, or lack thereof, revealed cracks in Walz’s debate strategy. What was supposed to be a prime moment for Democrats to shine instead turned into a demonstration of how out of touch they can be when faced with a Republican who doesn’t fall for their traps.

The Bias Continues

Meanwhile, the moderators, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, didn’t escape criticism either. Symone Sanders-Townsend expressed her shock at their lack of hard-hitting questions. She’s used to more aggressive interviewing, especially when it comes to Republicans.

It seems the media was expecting the debate to follow the typical formula: tough on Republicans, soft on Democrats. But when things didn’t go that way, the liberal commentators were left flustered. They wanted a battle; what they got was a more balanced conversation, and that clearly wasn’t enough.

So here we are again. The liberal media continues to dictate the narrative, disappointed whenever Democrats don’t perform to their expectations. They wanted Walz to pummel Vance into submission, but the debate simply didn’t play out that way.

JD Vance held his ground, showing that Republican candidates don’t have to conform to the toxic playbook laid out by the left. And as usual, the mainstream media couldn’t handle it.

Conclusion: A Win for Civility, A Loss for Bias

At the end of the day, Americans saw what the media didn’t want them to see—two candidates having a civil discussion, even if they disagreed. The left will keep pushing their biased agenda, but voters aren’t fooled. JD Vance came out on top, not by being combative, but by staying calm and collected.

And as long as the media keeps trying to manipulate the narrative, Republicans like Vance will continue to win by simply being real.

Key Takeaways:

• The mainstream media shows clear bias, often favoring Democrats like Kamala Harris while scrutinizing conservatives.
• In the Walz-Vance debate, JD Vance remained calm and composed, leaving Walz looking nervous and unprepared.
• Media critics expected more aggression, but Vance’s “Midwestern nice” approach disarmed Walz and highlighted their contrasting styles.

Source: Fox News