Split Screen

After Donald Trump's miserable debate performance against Kamala Harris on Tuesday night, many Republicans blamed the people tasked with preparing the ex-President. Nonetheless

The most common target was ABC News and moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis, who, unlike the moderators of the June CNN debate between Trump and Biden, pushed back in real time on some of Trump’s falsehoods about abortion and immigrants abusing pets.

“Three vs. one” became a mantra on the right as Republicans sought to portray the moderators as biased against Trump.

“This debate is three vs one — the ABC moderators clearly shilling for Kamala Harris,” Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman who helped Trump prepare, posted on the social platform X. 

"Literally, the question to Trump was "Why did you do the horrible thing?' And the question to Harris is 'What do you think about the horrible thing Trump said?'" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on Fox News.

Muir and Davis were not totally objective. However, that was not the major reason Trump lost the debate, nor that he was ill-prepared or that Harris employed a superpower to bait the former President into being his dishonest, belligerent, and fairly ignorant self.

Pundits, journalists, politicians of all political stripes have short memories. They'd better understand the dynamics of the faceoff if they recalled that, as Politico reported on October 11, 2012

Vice President Joe Biden delivered an extraordinarily aggressive, top-to-bottom attack on the Romney-Ryan ticket Thursday, repeatedly interrupting and even laughing at Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan during the lone vice presidential debate of the 2012 campaign.

That's the same Joe Biden whom Harris has served under for almost four years. And in Philadelphia, the current vice president replaced her infamous cackle with laughter and a clever smile as if gasping you've got to be kidding."

Wikipedia explains "'a picture is worth a thousand words' is an adage in multiple languages meaning that complex and sometimes multiple ideas can be conveyed by a single still image, which conveys its meaning or essence more effectively than a mere verbal description."

"Can," and usually is. A verbal description is subject to refutation, valid or otherwise, while a picture stands alone, creating a powerful expression, and may be seared into memory. Most voters will little remember any details put forward either by Ms. Harris or Mr. Trump during their debate and virtually all have a working knowledge of their contrasting values and ideology. Add to that the skepticism, even cynicism, most Americans have about politicians and what they say, and few of their words will have more than very minimal impact.

By contrast, those images are more easily remembered and are generally more trusted by viewers.  Republicans fear (with at least a little justification) that voters were manipulated (a charge they're wise not to make overtly) by the ABC monitors because they corrected with facts Donald Trump more than Kamala Harris and that the questions were ones more favorable to the Harris than to the Trump agenda. 

But viewers were less manipulated by the ABC reporters than they were by Donald Trump's opponent, who had reason and opportunity to do so.  The split screen was Harris' opportunity and persuasion was her (justified) motive.

In this specific instance, the primacy of images over words had a happy outcome, favoring considerably the less reprehensible individual over the more reprehensible individual. It will not always be thus because it typically abets the less serious, less worthy applicant for political office..

There are many reasons for Donald Trump's wretched performance in Philadelphia. It would be impolite and politically inconvenient to suggest that Kamala Harris' countenance, combined with her visual mannerisms, were the primary factors in her dominant presentation. But reality intrudes.

Share |