In what’s becoming an increasingly predictable circus, CNN debate moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are entrenched in controversial connections with former intelligence officials who actively pushed the now-discredited Steele Dossier and the false narrative surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop as products of Russian disinformation.
Tapper, in particular, has a history of relying on information from James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, to support claims that Russia hacked DNC emails to aid Trump—a storyline that hinged heavily on the now-disproven Steele Dossier. Meanwhile, Bash’s ties run deep with the intelligence community through her former marriage to Jeremy Bash, a one-time CIA chief of staff, who, alongside Clapper, endorsed the notion that the laptop story was just Russian meddling.
This entanglement of media figures with intelligence operatives casts a long shadow over the supposed impartiality of these moderators. With such profound connections to fabrications that have been categorically busted, one must seriously question their ability to conduct a debate that is fair and unbiased. It’s a scenario ripe for conflict of interest, where the potential for bias is not just a threat but a likelihood.
As the integrity of our electoral process continues to come under scrutiny, the choice of Tapper and Bash, such compromised figures, to moderate a debate of monumental importance to the nation only adds fuel to the fire of distrust among the public. The roles these moderators have played in perpetuating baseless narratives should give any discerning citizen pause. What we need is a commitment to fairness and transparency that seems sorely lacking.
It’s high time for a thorough reevaluation of how we select individuals for these critical roles in our democracy. How many more tainted debates and skewed narratives must we endure before there’s a real change in how these decisions are made? Surely, the American people deserve moderators who have not only an understanding of the issues at hand but also a proven record of impartiality and integrity, not an allegiance to a particular narrative that directly opposes another candidate.
