In the landscape of American political journalism, a troubling trend has emerged this election season: the selective editing of the news. The latest case study comes courtesy of “60 Minutes” of CBS News, whose apparent need to repackage Vice President Kamala Harris’ words into a neatly clipped soundbite is raising skepticism about the intent behind it. What makes the whole thing even more troubling is that they’ve withheld the full, unedited transcript of Kamala’s interview. They should have released it not because the Trump campaign labeled it “deceptively edited,” but because journalistic ethics demanded nothing less.
Former CBS reporter Catherine Herridge points out that there’s precedent for the network releasing a full, unedited transcript: they did so for her interview with then-President Donald Trump in 2020. This raises the question—why not now?
A clip of “60 Minutes” interview aired on Face the Nation on October 6, where Harris provided a lengthier response to Bill Whitaker’s question regarding the Biden-Harris administration lack of influence over Netanyahu. Yet, on October 7, that same answer was ruthlessly edited into a punchline, transforming Harris into something quite different. One might ask: Why? Why sacrifice credibility that remains in mainstream media for the sake of making Harris look good? What, exactly, do Harris—or CBS—stand to gain from this performance of distortion?
In response to the controversy surrounding the edited remarks, a Harris campaign aide told Variety, “We do not control CBS’s production decisions and refer any questions to CBS.”
The kind of media distortion by editing interviews into a Final Cut according to their own narrative, biases, or political agenda is a deliberate reshaping of reality. Harris, like any politician, crafts her messages carefully, balancing the demands of public perception with political strategy. But when those carefully constructed messages are edited to make her sound like a leader of the free world who needs to fit into some ideal formula for electability, not only does it diminish her, but it also lowers the level of public discourse. If Harris can’t be presented authentically in what should be a controlled setting, how can we trust her to be genuine when the pressures of the highest office amplify?
This is, after all, the age of constructed reality. The edit button is at the ready, and the truth is only “as is” as the next soundbite. CBS News, in their editorial slashing, seems to have taken the view that the American electorate cannot discern the difference between two different versions of her answers. Like in the “spot the difference” riddle, CBS is underestimating and disrespecting voters’ ability to understand what just happened.
By doing this, they are effectively aiding Donald Trump who has been shouting “A FAKE NEWS SCAM” and “election interference” while demanding accountability. But the bigger question is: Does this sort of distortion benefit Harris? The short answer is: not likely.
For one, it sends the signal that Harris’ full thoughts—whatever they may be—aren’t good enough and not worth the public’s time. Instead, we are served an edited Harris, a preview of a person who needs to fit into some imaginary model of POTUS. Why not let Harris share her views on the issues of our day unscripted? Once CBS News sanitizes it for public consumption, those views seem curated, artificial, and devoid of objectivity. Worse yet, they risk becoming politicized in an election where media should at least pretend not to take sides.
The danger of post-editing Harris lies in the narrative that emerges when authenticity is sacrificed for a political soundbite. For Harris, it highlights a deeper issue—one that pressures women, especially those in high office, into fitting an impossible mold of perfection. The demand isn’t just for competence but for an idealized version of what the first female president is “supposed” to sound like. This extends beyond the realm of politics; it is a societal issue, where women are incessantly held to standards that their male counterparts are rarely, if ever, subjected to. At least her opponent is not.
Harris, much like any candidate, is selling herself as someone to be trusted, to be believed. But trust is a fragile commodity, especially in the political marketplace, and once the cracks start to appear, they tend to widen. If Harris needs a media filter to make her appear competent, relatable, or presidential, it’s only a matter of time before the public begins to wonder whether there’s any substance at all beneath the gloss.
This episode at CBS News is not a mere aberration but a symptom of a larger cultural decline—one in which truth is a tool for persuasion rather than illumination. It benefits no one, least of all Kamala Harris. If her words are not fit for broadcast without a heavy hand on the editorial scissors, it suggests that either her message is flawed or that the media does not trust the American people to hear her out.
In the end, both Harris and the media are diminished. What should be an open exchange of ideas becomes a carefully controlled stage play, where the lines are rehearsed and the outcomes predetermined. And when the curtain falls, we’re left to wonder: If she can’t be authentic now, when exactly will she be? When the stakes are higher? When she comes into the Oval Office? If this is the taste of how things run, we have every reason to doubt the promises of authenticity to come.
For Harris, this isn’t just a matter of poor optics—it’s a question of political survival. The media can continue editing her message into punchlines, but the electorate might eventually punch back.
CBS should release the full transcript, and they should do it now.
thepavlovictoday.com
Former CBS reporter Catherine Herridge points out that there’s precedent for the network releasing a full, unedited transcript: they did so for her interview with then-President Donald Trump in 2020. This raises the question—why not now?
A clip of “60 Minutes” interview aired on Face the Nation on October 6, where Harris provided a lengthier response to Bill Whitaker’s question regarding the Biden-Harris administration lack of influence over Netanyahu. Yet, on October 7, that same answer was ruthlessly edited into a punchline, transforming Harris into something quite different. One might ask: Why? Why sacrifice credibility that remains in mainstream media for the sake of making Harris look good? What, exactly, do Harris—or CBS—stand to gain from this performance of distortion?
In response to the controversy surrounding the edited remarks, a Harris campaign aide told Variety, “We do not control CBS’s production decisions and refer any questions to CBS.”
The kind of media distortion by editing interviews into a Final Cut according to their own narrative, biases, or political agenda is a deliberate reshaping of reality. Harris, like any politician, crafts her messages carefully, balancing the demands of public perception with political strategy. But when those carefully constructed messages are edited to make her sound like a leader of the free world who needs to fit into some ideal formula for electability, not only does it diminish her, but it also lowers the level of public discourse. If Harris can’t be presented authentically in what should be a controlled setting, how can we trust her to be genuine when the pressures of the highest office amplify?
This is, after all, the age of constructed reality. The edit button is at the ready, and the truth is only “as is” as the next soundbite. CBS News, in their editorial slashing, seems to have taken the view that the American electorate cannot discern the difference between two different versions of her answers. Like in the “spot the difference” riddle, CBS is underestimating and disrespecting voters’ ability to understand what just happened.
By doing this, they are effectively aiding Donald Trump who has been shouting “A FAKE NEWS SCAM” and “election interference” while demanding accountability. But the bigger question is: Does this sort of distortion benefit Harris? The short answer is: not likely.
For one, it sends the signal that Harris’ full thoughts—whatever they may be—aren’t good enough and not worth the public’s time. Instead, we are served an edited Harris, a preview of a person who needs to fit into some imaginary model of POTUS. Why not let Harris share her views on the issues of our day unscripted? Once CBS News sanitizes it for public consumption, those views seem curated, artificial, and devoid of objectivity. Worse yet, they risk becoming politicized in an election where media should at least pretend not to take sides.
The danger of post-editing Harris lies in the narrative that emerges when authenticity is sacrificed for a political soundbite. For Harris, it highlights a deeper issue—one that pressures women, especially those in high office, into fitting an impossible mold of perfection. The demand isn’t just for competence but for an idealized version of what the first female president is “supposed” to sound like. This extends beyond the realm of politics; it is a societal issue, where women are incessantly held to standards that their male counterparts are rarely, if ever, subjected to. At least her opponent is not.
Harris, much like any candidate, is selling herself as someone to be trusted, to be believed. But trust is a fragile commodity, especially in the political marketplace, and once the cracks start to appear, they tend to widen. If Harris needs a media filter to make her appear competent, relatable, or presidential, it’s only a matter of time before the public begins to wonder whether there’s any substance at all beneath the gloss.
This episode at CBS News is not a mere aberration but a symptom of a larger cultural decline—one in which truth is a tool for persuasion rather than illumination. It benefits no one, least of all Kamala Harris. If her words are not fit for broadcast without a heavy hand on the editorial scissors, it suggests that either her message is flawed or that the media does not trust the American people to hear her out.
In the end, both Harris and the media are diminished. What should be an open exchange of ideas becomes a carefully controlled stage play, where the lines are rehearsed and the outcomes predetermined. And when the curtain falls, we’re left to wonder: If she can’t be authentic now, when exactly will she be? When the stakes are higher? When she comes into the Oval Office? If this is the taste of how things run, we have every reason to doubt the promises of authenticity to come.
For Harris, this isn’t just a matter of poor optics—it’s a question of political survival. The media can continue editing her message into punchlines, but the electorate might eventually punch back.
CBS should release the full transcript, and they should do it now.
Kamala Harris: The Manufactured Candidate? Why CBS's "60 Minutes" Edit Betrays The Larger Problem - The Pavlovic Today
As CBS's "60 Minutes" edits Vice President Harris’ interview into a punchline, voters are left wondering if media spin will undermine her credibility ahead of the Election Day. When political image is sculpted by media curation, the truth becomes the first casualty, White House Correspondent...
thepavlovictoday.com
