The NYTimes isn’t sure Kamala Harris won the debate 🙄

After Harris’ stellar debate performance, NYT says undecided voters need more policy details to make a choice [Courier]( Friend, On the debate stage on Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris looked polished, prepared, and, most importantly, presidential. Trump, on the other hand, was an angry mess. In viral moment after viral moment, Trump accused immigrants of eating pets in Ohio and showed he cared more about defending his crowd sizes than he did putting forth any serious policy ideas, including a laugh-out-loud moment where he said he had “concepts” of a health care plan to replace Obamacare. By any measure, Kamala Harris won the debate. So, how did The New York Times react? [We’ll talk about the legacy media’s toxic both-sides-ism in a moment, but if you support COURIER’s mission to call out bias in the media, can you chip in $25 now?]( To appear “balanced,” legacy media outlets like The New York Times have consistently pushed the right-wing talking point that Vice President Harris is all style and no substance – that she has no plans or policies. In the hours after the debate, The New York Times doubled down on this idea in interviews with undecided voters. The Times said those voters said they wanted more “fine print” from Harris. But here’s the problem with that conclusion. Research consistently shows that undecided voters are less engaged with politics. Their policy views are often mixed with ideas from both parties, and in the end the idea that the “fine print” of a policy will be the thing that persuades an undecided voter is simply untrue. This is the danger of the outdated “both sides” framing of the legacy media. You are forced to consider a blatantly false idea (here, the right-wing talking point that Kamala Harris lacks substance) and question what was so obvious at the debate – Donald Trump is unfit and unprepared to be President. No fine print needed. Here at COURIER, we don’t engage with the false “both sides” argument. In fact, we call it out when we see it. Just take a look: The legacy media’s unwillingness to call out Trump’s lack of fitness for office contributed to his victory in 2016. We can’t let that happen again. That’s why COURIER is doing our part to hold the media accountable for their biased reporting. [But we can’t do it without your help. COURIER gets its funding from supporters like you – can you chip in $25 now to support our critical reporting?]( Express Donate: If you've stored your info with ActBlue Express, we'll process your contribution instantly: [$5]( [$15]( [$25]( [$50]( Thank you so much, COURIER --------------------------------------------------------------- Email us: info@couriernewsroom.com [Become a member!]( This message was sent to: {EMAIL}. Email is a critical way we communicate with grassroots supporters like you. However, if you would like to change your subscription preferences, here are some options: [Receive Fewer Emails]( [Update Your Information]( [unsubscribe]( To give by check: Courier Newsroom Box 509 New York, NY 10032