REPORT: Recent media narratives are allegedly being reshaped to benefit the Harris campaign. Here are five purported myths being promoted this week:
Harris and the Minnesota Freedom Fund
Claim: CBS reports that Trump is lying about Harris donating to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which bailed out individuals arrested during the George Floyd riots. Reality: Harris promoted the fund on social media platform X, encouraging people to donate to the cause.
In June 2020, during the protests following the death of George Floyd, then-Senator Kamala Harris publicly expressed her support for the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), an organization that assists in posting bail for individuals unable to afford it. Harris took to Twitter to encourage her followers to contribute to the fund, stating, “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” Her endorsement was part of a broader movement among activists and public figures to address systemic inequalities in the criminal justice system, highlighting the disparities faced by those unable to pay bail.
The Minnesota Freedom Fund gained significant attention and donations during this period, enabling it to support many protesters arrested during the George Floyd demonstrations. However, the fund later faced criticism for its role in bailing out individuals accused of violent crimes. Critics argued that supporting the release of such individuals could lead to public safety concerns. Harris’s support for the MFF has been cited by opponents as controversial, particularly in discussions about her stance on criminal justice reform and public safety.
Biden’s Departure to “Save Democracy”
Claim: Reports suggest President Biden voluntarily “dropped out” to protect democracy. Reality: It is alleged that top Democrats forcibly removed Biden after he indicated his intention to stay, reportedly using threats to ensure his compliance.
Reports have surfaced suggesting that President Joe Biden voluntarily withdrew from the presidential race to protect democracy. This narrative portrays Biden as stepping aside to unify the Democratic Party and ensure a stronger candidate could take his place, thus safeguarding the democratic process and enhancing the party’s chances in the upcoming election.
Contrary to these reports, allegations have emerged indicating that top Democrats may have forcibly removed Biden from the race after he expressed his intention to remain a candidate. According to these allegations, party leaders reportedly used threats and intense pressure to compel Biden to comply with their decision, aiming to replace him with a candidate they believed had a better chance of securing a victory. These allegations suggest internal party dynamics and strategic maneuvering rather than a voluntary decision on Biden’s part. Further investigation and verification are needed to clarify the true circumstances surrounding Biden’s departure from the race.
JD Vance and the Couch Cushion Claim
Claim: A rumor circulated that JD Vance had inappropriate relations with a couch cushion. Reality: The Associated Press initially fact-checked this claim as false but later removed the fact check, citing it “didn’t go through our standing editing process.”
A bizarre rumor recently circulated alleging that JD Vance, a prominent political figure and author, had inappropriate relations with a couch cushion. This outlandish claim quickly gained traction on social media, prompting fact-checking organizations to investigate its veracity.
The Associated Press (AP) initially fact-checked the rumor and determined it to be false. However, the AP later removed their fact-check from their site, explaining that it “didn’t go through our standing editing process.”
Despite the removal of the fact-check, there is no credible evidence supporting the rumor, and it remains debunked as a baseless and absurd allegation. This incident highlights the importance of thorough editorial review in fact-checking and the rapid spread of misinformation in the digital age.
Kamala Harris as a DEI Pick
Claim: The media asserts that Kamala Harris was not selected as Vice President based on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) criteria. Reality: In 2020, President Biden explicitly stated his intention to choose a Vice President based on gender and race, confirming that Harris was indeed chosen with DEI considerations in mind.
Some media outlets assert that Kamala Harris was not selected as Vice President based on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) criteria. This narrative suggests that her selection was based solely on her qualifications and political acumen, dismissing the idea that DEI considerations played a significant role in her appointment.
In reality, President Joe Biden made it clear during his 2020 presidential campaign that he intended to choose a Vice President who would reflect the diversity of the United States. Biden explicitly stated his commitment to selecting a woman, and it was widely reported that he also sought to choose a person of color. These statements confirm that DEI considerations were indeed a significant factor in Harris’s selection as Vice President. Harris’s qualifications and experience complemented Biden’s criteria, making her a historic choice as the first female, first Black, and first South Asian Vice President of the United States.
Harris and the Border Czar Role
Claim: Recent reports deny that Kamala Harris was ever assigned as the Border Czar. Reality: The media has been attempting to revise their own 2021 reports, which consistently stated that Harris was in charge of border issues.
Recent reports have surfaced denying that Vice President Kamala Harris was ever assigned as the Border Czar. This narrative suggests that the media has been attempting to revise their own 2021 reports that consistently stated Harris was in charge of addressing border issues.
Fact-checking reveals that in March 2021, President Joe Biden explicitly tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with leading efforts to address the root causes of migration from Central America to the U.S. southern border. This role, widely reported by multiple media outlets at the time, included diplomatic efforts with countries in the Northern Triangle—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—to curb the flow of migrants. While her role was not solely focused on day-to-day border security, she was indeed given significant responsibility in addressing broader immigration issues. Claims that Harris was never assigned to oversee border issues contradict the administration’s statements and the media coverage from that period.
These myths highlight the ongoing debates and scrutiny surrounding media reporting and political narratives, reflecting broader concerns about the accuracy and motivations behind certain news stories.
