In this monologue, talk‑show host Dennis Prager presents an affidavit from a long‑time ABC News employee alleging systemic political bias within the network. The affidavit, notarized eight days before the recent ABC presidential debate, claims that news stories have been suppressed due to corporate influence and that the network’s coverage is no longer objective. Prager highlights specific alleged bias in the debate staging: Kamala Harris allegedly received a smaller podium for Donald Trump and favorable split‑screen positioning, which Prager argues could affect viewers’ perceptions, echoing the historic impact of visual presentation in the 1960 Kennedy‑Nixon debate. He critiques the media’s perceived indifference to such bias, questions whether the public will care, and urges listeners to consider boycotting ABC News and pursuing legal action against mainstream media outlets. Throughout, he makes a point of using gender‑neutral pronouns for the affidavit filer before shifting to “she,” and emphasizes the importance of visual cues in shaping political narratives.
Chapters
This affidavit was filed the day before, or notarized, that is, the day before the ABC News presidential debate, which took place exactly a week ago. So this document was notarized 8 days ago, and it is from an ABC News employee who says that they— and I'm not using they in an attempt to be woke and refer to a gender-confused individual. We do not know the gender of the person who filed this, so I will be referring to them as they. This person has worked for ABC News, reading here from the affidavit, for over 10 years in various technical and administrative positions. And this individual writes, since the acquisition of ABC News in 1996, I've observed significant transformations in the nature of news reporting at the organization. These changes suggest a shift from unbiased reporting to a model influenced by external factors. And in fact, they go on to say, quote, I have personally witnessed news stories being cut from programming and not reported at all due to the influence of certain corporations linked to our parent company. Now, this individual also makes it clear, to their credit, that they, quote, do not endorse Donald Trump in his capacity as candidate for the— for president of the United States, but nevertheless goes on to say that they want to expose the bias of a news organization which claims to be objective and serving the interests of the American people. And we go through here and it really is amazing that this is allowed to go on and that ABC News would, if true, partake in this kind of activity. And it raises the question if they worried that anybody on the inside would expose this. This seems so much like hubristic behavior. And either they didn't think that anyone in their company would rat them out, which is a problem unto itself because it indicates that they think that the people who work at the company are partisan enough that they would not expose the alleged bias permeating this company, which claims to be objective. That's a problem unto itself. Or it appears that ABC News thought that if someone inside the company would expose this, that the American people generally wouldn't care. And I hate to say it, but ABC News might be right. I think people care for a small amount of time, but then it does appear that we just move on. And go, oh well, well, that was a quintessential example of the mainstream media not being on the side of the people. And at a certain point, I think that we have to consider what actually we should do about this. Should we boycott ABC News? I mean, I boycott the mainstream media all the time. I never watch them, only to really expose what they do here in my capacity as a talk show host. but I think there needs to be legal action against these news organizations. So let's look here at what this person is saying. I'm gathering that it's a she, so maybe I'll shift my pronouns to she. Here again in the affidavit, the Harris campaign received particular accommodations, including but not limited to the providing of a podium significantly smaller than that used by Donald Trump and assurances regarding split-screen television views that would favorably impact Kamala Harris's appearance relative to Donald Trump. Now, of course, this is the least of the problems of the debate, the visuals. However, the visuals are quite important. I go back to the 1960 presidential debate, the first televised debate between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon. And interestingly, many Americans at the time who were polled about that debate said that among the Americans who listened on the radio, they said that they felt that Richard Nixon had a stronger debate performance. But among those who watched on the television, they thought that John F. Kennedy had a better performance. Now, of course, my subjective opinion, JFK is easier on the eyes than his Republican counterpart, but it appeared that he had more of a stage presence. So of course these visuals matter.
