As the 2024 election cycle approaches, mainstream media outlets are rushing to reframe the narrative around Kamala Harris’ record, particularly her role in addressing the crisis at the southern border. In a coordinated effort, outlets like CNN and Axios are now claiming that Harris was never appointed as the “border czar” by the Biden administration, despite their own previous reporting to the contrary. This about-face has sparked outrage among critics who accuse the media of whitewashing Harris’ failures and paving the way for her presidential run.
Revisionist History from CNN and Axios
In a recent segment, CNN anchor Dana Bash asserted that Harris “was never and is not the border czar,” directly contradicting reports from 2021 that the Biden administration had welcomed Harris’ appointment to this role. Similarly, Axios published a report claiming that the Trump campaign was holding Harris responsible for border failures under a “border czar” title “which she never actually had.”
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1815797702233567506
The Trump campaign and Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the "border czar" title — which she never actually had.https://t.co/PPHCjKBf83
— Axios (@axios) July 24, 2024
However, a closer examination reveals that Axios itself had previously reported on Harris’ designation as the administration’s point person on the border crisis. In multiple articles, the outlet had used the term “border czar” to describe Harris’ responsibilities, undermining their current stance.
This you? pic.twitter.com/FhqVuPlvw6
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) July 24, 2024
Backlash on Social Media
The media’s attempts to rewrite history did not go unnoticed, as users on social media platforms quickly called out the discrepancies. One user, Nick Sortor, pointed out that Axios had indeed referred to Harris as the “border czar” in their own past reporting.
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1816099293268263218
https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1816108305707851977
Trump and Republicans Seize the Opportunity
The media’s about-face provided an opening for President Trump and Republican lawmakers to hold Harris accountable for the administration’s failures at the border. Trump himself condemned Harris, stating that she had been appointed as the “border czar” and had presided over a surge of illegal immigration and migrant-related crimes.
Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY) introduced a resolution condemning Harris for her role in allowing millions of migrants to cross the southern border illegally during the Biden administration.
Surrogates Defend Harris
In response to the attacks, surrogates of the Harris campaign rushed to defend Harris, arguing that she had assumed a diplomatic role similar to the one Biden held during the Obama administration, rather than serving as the “border czar.”
Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Fox News that Harris “is not the border czar,” despite the administration’s own previous statements and media reports to the contrary.
Harris’ Own Contradictory Statements
Adding to the confusion, Harris herself has made contradictory statements regarding her involvement in the border crisis. In a sit-down interview with USA Today, Harris claimed, “We’ve been to the border,” only to be quickly called out by the reporter, who pointed out that she had not actually visited the border.
When pressed further, Harris responded, “And I haven’t been to Europe. I don’t understand the point that you’re making.” This evasive and seemingly flippant response has only fueled the perception of Harris’ disengagement with the critical issue of border security.
With illegal immigration remaining a top concern for voters, Harris’ handling of the border crisis could become a significant liability in a her 2024 campaign.
Erosion of Public Trust
The media’s contradictory reporting and apparent willingness to whitewash Harris’ record have further eroded public trust in mainstream news outlets. Accusations of bias and political agenda-setting have become increasingly common, as the public grapples with the realization that even the media’s own reporting can be selectively revised to serve a particular narrative.
The Danger of Selective Reporting
The case of the media’s shifting narrative on Kamala Harris’ border record highlights the dangers of selective reporting and the potential for long-term damage to the credibility of news organizations. By failing to maintain consistent and objective coverage, the media risks being perceived as complicit in the very political machinations they are meant to scrutinize and hold accountable.
The Need for Accountability
As the 2024 election approaches, it is crucial that the media, political leaders, and the public engage in a rigorous and honest examination of the issues facing the country, including the ongoing crisis at the southern border. Selective reporting and revisionist history serve only to undermine the democratic process and erode public trust in the institutions meant to inform and empower the electorate.
Leave a Comment