I’m referring to a recent interview with ABC’s Linsey Davis, who recently made headlines when she and David Muir performed as Vice President Kamala Harris’ partners in her debate with former President Donald Trump:

As RedState has reported, the moderators for the ABC News presidential debate have faced intense and justified criticism over their handling of the event, with conservatives and even some independent observers pointing out how it quickly became a three-on-one against GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

The primary issues revolve around the one-sided fact-checking, the fact that some of the ones they did of Trump were false, they changed the rules on muting mics about half an hour before the debate (which had previously been a demand of the Harris campaign), and that at times they invited Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris to join in on the pile-on in what looked like a coordinated effort.

The Los Angeles Times ran a puff piece about Davis, singing her praises because she’s a black female journalist and blah blah blah. However, the telling portion of the piece came when it described how Davis and Muir prepared for the debate, noting how they pored through hours of Trump rallies and other appearances so they could anticipate some of the arguments he would make during the debate.

The article blatantly reveals that the purpose of the preparation was intended to equip the two debaters to fact-check Trump – and only Trump – during the debate.

With co-moderator David Muir, Davis had studied hours of campaign rallies and interviews to prepare for the much-anticipated event at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, and were ready to counter the candidates’ most egregious statements.

Davis, wearing pink glasses while speaking to The Times over breakfast at the Ritz Carlton in Philadelphia, said the decision to attempt to correct the candidates was in response to the June 27 CNN debate between Trump and President Biden, whose poor performance led to his exit from the race.

“People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators,” Davis said.

Muir and Davis divided up the topics to study, and Davis fully anticipated that Trump’s erroneous abortion claim would come up when she questioned him on the issue.

“That was an obvious thing to get on the record,” Davis said.

In the weeks before the debate, various scenarios were played out in table read-like settings where the anchors and ABC News producers tested their questions and played out the possible responses.

The last part was a reference to the part of the debate when Trump argued that in some states, Democrats favor abortion even up until shortly after the baby is born. Davis falsely asserted that this was not the case. “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born,” she claimed.

However, as RedState’s Jennifer Oliver O’Connell pointed out, there have been plenty of cases where babies who survived abortion attempts were allowed to die after being born, with doctors refraining from giving medical treatment.

The debate was a prime example showing that much of the establishment media is firmly biased in favor of the left – as it always has been. But there was something different about this development. In fact, the past decade has revealed a new era in the world of journalism.

In the past, folks like Muir and Davis would have at least tried to cloak their pro-Democrat sympathies. They might have done a couple of small fact-checks on Harris here and there to make it look good. The LA Times piece would have used this to pretend that Davis and Muir are treating both candidates fairly.

That didn’t happen here, and the reason why is that these people aren’t even trying to hide their bias as they did in the past.

The LA Times piece was essentially an admission that the two alleged journalists were at the debate to prop up Harris, not to facilitate a competition of ideology and policies. Since Trump first entered the political realm, news outlets like CNN, ABC, CBS, and others slowly began removing their masks and showing that their mission is to ensure that Democrats win and Republicans lose. They resorted to all kinds of corrupt reporting practices to do so.

Indeed, during the debate, Harris repeated the “fine people” hoax, which has been debunked numerous times – even by the same outlets that spread it. Yet, neither Davis nor Muir bothered to fact-check it. The bottom line is that these people are barely trying to hide their bias, and this is a positive thing for America – even if their intentions are not positive.

This means more and more Americans have seen that the talking heads on their screens are not trying to inform them but influence them. Even further, more people are seeing that the press is willing to lie straight to their faces if it means getting their favored candidates elected. This has caused trust in media to take a perpetual nosedive over recent years.

It has also brought about the rise of alternative digital media, with podcasters, influencers, news sites, and other forms of media to debunk the lies peddled by the likes of Davis and Muir. I wrote about this in more detail earlier. Perhaps we are entering an age in which the powers that be no longer have a stranglehold over the narrative. Those seeking to manipulate us now have to work harder to do so.

Since this is the case, Davis and Muir have done the American people a favor by exposing their biases and those of their contemporaries. Now, even more people will learn that the legacy media is not to be trusted.