Honestly, if you watched the 2024 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on ABC, you probably walked away with one of two very different stories. One side saw a masterclass in holding a candidate accountable. The other saw a "three-on-one" ambush where the referees only blew the whistle on one team. The controversy surrounding abc not fact checking kamala has basically become a Rorschach test for how Americans view the media today.
It was a Tuesday night in September. Philadelphia was the backdrop. David Muir and Linsey Davis were the moderators. By the end of the night, they had live-corrected Trump five times. They corrected Harris exactly zero times.
That disparity is what lit the internet on fire.
The Viral Moment That Changed Everything
Debates used to be about the candidates. This one became about the "fact-check." When Trump brought up the viral—and debunked—claims about migrants in Springfield, Ohio, David Muir didn't just move on. He stepped in. He told the audience that ABC had reached out to the city manager and found no evidence for the story.
Then Linsey Davis did it too. When the topic turned to abortion, she countered Trump’s claim about "execution after birth" by stating, "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born."
For many viewers, this felt like journalism finally growing a backbone. But for others, the silence following Harris's more questionable statements felt deafening. It raised a massive question: If the moderators are going to act as the "truth police," do they have a moral obligation to be equal-opportunity officers?
What Harris Said That Didn't Get Flagged
The core of the frustration regarding abc not fact checking kamala stems from a handful of specific claims she made that independent fact-checkers later flagged as misleading or outright false. Since the moderators didn't jump in during the live broadcast, critics argue she was given a "free pass" to use pre-packaged talking points that weren't entirely accurate.
- The "Blood制造" Claim: Harris referenced Trump’s "bloodbath" comment, implying he was predicting national violence if he lost. Contextually, Trump was talking about the auto industry and tariffs. It was a heated metaphor, not a literal threat of a coup, but ABC let the characterization stand.
- Project 2025: She repeatedly tied Trump to the Heritage Foundation’s "Project 2025." While many of his former staffers wrote it, Trump has publicly disavowed the document multiple times. The moderators didn't clarify this distinction.
- The "Fine People" Hoax: Harris brought up the 2017 Charlottesville protest, claiming Trump called neo-Nazis "very fine people." Most full transcripts show he followed that up by saying he wasn't talking about the white nationalists, who he said should be "condemned totally."
- Manufacturing Jobs: She claimed the Biden-Harris administration created 800,000 manufacturing jobs. The real number at the time was closer to 739,000, and much of that was a post-COVID bounce-back rather than brand-new growth.
Asymmetrical Lying or Asymmetrical Refeering?
Media analysts like Margaret Sullivan have argued that "when there is asymmetrical lying, there will be asymmetrical fact-checking." Basically, if one candidate says 30 things that are provably false and the other says three, the "score" won't look even.
But is that the moderator's job?
👉 See also: Election Vote Count Live: What Most People Get Wrong
In the June debate on CNN, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash didn't fact-check anyone. They let the candidates lie to each other’s faces. The theory was that the opponent should be the one to call out the lie. ABC took the opposite approach. They decided they were the factual guardrails.
The problem is, when you set yourself up as the arbiter of truth, any omission looks like bias. By correcting Trump on the "eating pets" story—which, let's be real, was a wild claim—but ignoring Harris's "Project 2025" framing, ABC opened themselves up to the "three-on-one" narrative that Megyn Kelly and other conservative commentators hammered for weeks.
The Toll on Public Trust
The fallout was pretty swift. A lot of people felt like the "fix was in." Trump even went on a tear, calling the moderators "hacks" and claiming the whole thing was rigged. Even some non-partisan media critics felt uncomfortable with the optics.
If you're a voter trying to get a fair shake, seeing one person get "interrupted" by the host while the other gets to deliver rehearsed lines without pushback feels... off. It creates a "vibe" of unfairness that is hard to shake, even if the facts being checked were indeed wrong.
Why This Matters for 2026 and Beyond
We're in an era where trust in mainstream media is at an all-time low. When a major network like ABC is perceived as taking a side—even through the omission of fact-checking—it pushes people further into their information silos.
Social media becomes the "real" debate floor. Within minutes of the ABC debate, X (formerly Twitter) was flooded with "the fact checks ABC missed." This creates a fragmented reality where nobody can agree on the baseline facts of the night.
Actionable Steps for Navigating Media Bias
Don't just take the moderator's word for it. Or the candidate's. Here is how you can actually verify what’s going on during these high-stakes moments:
- Watch the "Raw" Feed Later: Re-watch key segments without the social media commentary. It’s amazing how different things feel when you aren't reading 100 tweets a minute.
- Use "Cross-Spectrum" Fact Checkers: Check PolitiFact (often seen as left-leaning), the Washington Post Fact Checker, and also conservative outlets like the Daily Signal or National Review. The truth usually lives in the overlap.
- Read the Transcripts: Don't rely on the 30-second clip on TikTok. Read the full exchange. Context is usually the first thing that gets cut in a "fact-check."
- Demand "Silent" Fact-Checking: Support news formats that provide on-screen citations or QR codes rather than having moderators interrupt. It keeps the flow of the debate while providing the data.
The debate over abc not fact checking kamala isn't really about one night in Philadelphia. It's about who gets to decide what is "true" in a country that can't agree on much. If the media wants to regain trust, they might need to realize that being a "referee" requires calling fouls on both sides of the court, even if one team is playing a lot rougher than the other.