In a recent media takedown, conservative commentator Candace Owens has sharply criticized ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis, labeling them “a disgrace to their profession” after their moderation of a high-profile debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Known for her confrontational style and critique of mainstream media, Owens’ comments have ignited passionate discussions on social media, dividing opinions on whether the anchors blurred the lines of unbiased journalism.
Owens targeted Muir and Davis following their handling of the debate, claiming their approach favored Kamala Harris and lacked impartiality. In a tweet, she stated, “What we witnessed wasn’t moderation—it was a blatant attempt to help Kamala Harris. They didn’t even pretend to be impartial.” Her remarks echo a longstanding sentiment among some conservatives who argue that mainstream media exhibits bias against right-leaning figures.
During the debate, Muir and Davis fact-checked Trump multiple times, which Owens and other conservative commentators deemed excessive. They argued that this scrutiny allowed Harris to evade tough questions. “They treated Kamala Harris like a guest on The View—all softball questions and free passes,” Owens remarked in a follow-up video. “Meanwhile, Trump couldn’t get two words out before they jumped in to fact-check him.”
Owens’ critique has resonated with many on the right, further fueling accusations of media bias. Supporters of her viewpoint believe that traditional news outlets favor Democrats, and her comments quickly gained traction online, prompting hashtags like #DisgraceToJournalism and #StandWithMuirAndDavis to trend.
In response to Owens’ allegations, ABC News defended its moderators. A spokesperson stated, “Moderators have a responsibility to fact-check candidates, especially when misinformation is spread.” They emphasized that Muir and Davis acted professionally and impartially throughout the debate.
Owens, however, dismissed this defense, arguing that the nature of fact-checking often reflects a bias in favor of liberal perspectives. “What they call ‘fact-checking’ is really just interrupting one side and letting the other slide,” she stated during a podcast appearance, calling for equal scrutiny for all candidates.
The controversy raises significant questions about the role of debate moderators. Some argue that fact-checking is essential in today’s media landscape, especially to combat the rapid spread of misinformation. Others believe that moderators must maintain a delicate balance between accountability and impartiality.
As discussions surrounding Owens’ comments continue, social media remains a battleground. Supporters of Muir and Davis assert that fact-checking is a crucial aspect of journalism. One user tweeted, “Candace Owens is just upset because her guy didn’t get away with lying on stage.”
Owens’ ongoing critique of media figures reflects her broader campaign against perceived left-wing bias. She remains undeterred by Muir and Davis’ reputations, asserting that longevity in the industry does not exempt individuals from criticism. “The fact is, Muir and Davis have shown their true colors, and the American public deserves better than biased moderators posing as neutral journalists,” she stated.
As for Muir and Davis, they continue their work at ABC, with Muir anchoring World News Tonight and Davis covering significant events for the network. Neither anchor has publicly responded to Owens’ critique, opting to let the situation unfold without additional commentary.
This latest controversy highlights Owens’ talent for drawing attention and fostering dialogue, particularly among conservative audiences. With her history of challenging mainstream narratives, it seems likely that this debate over media bias and moderation will persist, reflecting the ongoing tensions in America’s political discourse.
