‘60 Minutes’ Editing Kamala Harris Is the Ultimate Deep Fake

Photo: CBS News/”60 Minutes”

Dan Rather, the former anchor of CBS News, was a little ahead of his time. He lost his job at the network over a fake news ambush of a presidential candidate. Now we’re watching his same network still engaging in fake news for Kamala Harris, blatantly and without a care in the world.

In 2004, just a couple of months before the presidential election, Rather presented on 60 Minutes II documents alleging a scandal with George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard deployment in 1972. Almost immediately the documents were disputed as forgeries. They were eventually confirmed as fake by experts for several reasons, one of which was that the typeface was not that of a typewriter from the 1970s, but comparable to a typeface from Microsoft Word software, released for the first time in 1983.

The scandal cost Rather, several producers, and even a network vice president, their jobs.

Fast-forward 20 years later, once again less than a couple of months from a presidential election, and CBS News has another scandal surrounding coverage of a presidential candidate. But this time to prop up Kamala Harris, their apparent and floundering, favorite.

Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, sat down for a taped interview with CBS’ Bill Whitaker for 60 Minutes which aired Monday night. The network then released what is called “teaser” clips consisting of elements from the interview before it aired that evening, one of which aired on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” In that clip, when Whitaker asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “isn’t listening” to the administration, Harris delivered one of her typical word salads, a nervous mashup of words that led to no real meaning or clarity saying, “Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.” But apparently, the folks at CBS aren’t into word salad, so they changed it. When the program aired on Monday night, Whitaker asked the question, but this time Kamala’s answer was different: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.” More concise, more understandable, and maybe even presidential. But that’s not the answer she gave in the earlier clip. Many have noted that CBS replaced her gibberish with a comment given earlier in the interview. Like an old-fashioned cut-and-paste job, but without the glue stick.

Multiple outlets have reached out to CBS asking for an explanation for the creative editing which changes the response of a presidential candidate to a national security question. After all, taped interviews are often edited for both television and print, for the sake of space or clarity. The problem here is, the presidential candidate’s inability to be clear about the issues is an extremely relevant part of an interview with a journalist. Her delivery, confidence, and clarity (or especially the lack thereof) matter.

As of this writing, CBS has not responded to queries. Kamala Harris’s team, however, did respond, as reported by Variety: “In a statement addressing the controversy surrounding the edited response, an aide for the Harris campaign told Variety, ‘We do not control CBS’s production decisions and refer questions to CBS.’ CBS did not immediately respond to Variety‘s request for comment.”

Now that’s just strange. Any serious person would be outraged if a network or reporter or any journalist were to deliberately change the nature of their answer to any question, let alone one about national security and foreign affairs as a war currently wages against an ally. But not Kamala. Her campaign’s response indicates no anger or concern, just an insistence that they had nothing to do with it. This implies that they know it was done to benefit them, which is why they need to distance themselves.

Whitaker had received praise for his questioning and even for issuing follow-up questions, which Harris had been able to avoid up until that point, even in the debate with Trump. Many, including myself, have presumed that Whitaker would be upset with the editing of his interview to make Harris appear coherent when she was not. But the article on the CBS website about the interview, carrying Bill Whitaker’s byline, presents the exchange as though it were a transcript even though it has the same edit eliminating Harris’ nonsensical word salad and replacing it with the cut-and-paste response. It does not provide any ellipses indicating something was cut, nor are there any bracketed segments which would also signify a summarizing for the sake of space or clarity. The URL address of the article (also revealingly) uses the word ‘transcript.’

The backlash has been swift. Harris has been ridiculed for her performance in these interviews, and her general inability to offer cogent answers on any issue of concern to Americans. Back-to-back clips of the original CBS teaser with her actual word salad answer compared with what was on the air has gone viral on social media. Journalists and politicians alike are demanding that the full, unedited transcript be released. Trump is calling for CBS to lose its broadcasting license, and during a speech to the Detroit Economic Forum noted, “The other big news is the fraud committed by 60 Minutes and CBS together with the Democrat Party, working together with them, which will go down as the single biggest scandal in broadcast history I predict…”

Something else worth noting surrounding this absurd situation is how blatant CBS was in their scramble to make Kamala Harris appear though she has some grip on the nature of the comments she makes. The teaser had been on the internet and aired on Face the Nation, seen by millions, yet they felt comfortable changing her response for airing that night with a cut and paste. Being so at ease, and even sloppy, with this action would indicate that they’ve done it before and have gotten away with it. A network doing this, in broad daylight seemingly without a care in the world about what it means or the impact it has, requires a certain amount of curiosity about how often this has occurred before.

If there was ever a blatant, classic example of election interference, this fits the bill. Voters look to legacy media, interviews, and debates in order to gather information so they can cast an informed vote. But how can we accomplish this if media is deliberately altering interviews in an effort to obscure the reality of a candidate’s condition, point-of-view, or ability to communicate?

What CBS has done goes beyond biased questions, or even deciding to protect a candidate by not asking hard questions, or follow-ups when Kamala wanders off into one of her nonsense soliloquies. In this case, manipulating what a presidential candidate actually says in order to make her seem more astute, disciplined, and intellectually capable of the job is at the very least a form of lying to the audience and an open, shameful attempt to interfere with the election.

Tammy Bruce, an Independent Conservative, has traversed a unique political journey that reflects her commitment to principles rather than party affiliations. She joined Fox News in 2005 as a Political Contributor, hosting her show “Get Tammy Bruce” on Fox Nation and providing insightful commentary on various issues for the Association for Mature Americans (AMAC).

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.