In a post-debate interview with Dr. Phil, body language specialists Scott Rouse and Greg Hartley claimed that the moderators from ABC News displayed clear favoritism toward Vice President Kamala Harris while showing hostility toward former President Donald Trump.
Bias in Subtle Cues
Greg Hartley, a former Army interrogator with expertise in behavioral analysis, highlighted the moderators’ facial expressions and question patterns as evidence of bias. “Just look at how they looked at Trump. There was an obvious lack of neutrality in their expressions,” he told Dr. Phil.
Hartley also noted that Harris was given gentler, double-barreled questions, while Trump faced aggressive lines of inquiry and repeated follow-ups. “That’s not even-handed moderation,” he said.
Interruptions and Audio Manipulation?
Scott Rouse, who has trained with the FBI and U.S. military in interrogation techniques, pointed out the interruptions Trump faced. According to Rouse, moderators frequently spoke over Trump or disrupted his responses—behavior not mirrored in their interactions with Harris.
He also speculated that Trump’s microphone might have been intentionally set louder, creating a more forceful and potentially negative auditory impression. “It’s possible his mic was ‘hotter’ than the others,” Rouse noted. “That would make him sound more aggressive, whether intentionally or not.”
A Pattern in Questioning
Dr. Phil compared the types of questions posed to both candidates, pointing out that Trump was consistently hit with fact-check-oriented inquiries and direct challenges. Harris, in contrast, faced fewer follow-ups and more open-ended prompts.
“I didn’t hear fact-checks aimed at Harris,” Dr. Phil observed. Hartley agreed, saying, “There’s a way to ask a question that frames a person negatively. It happened more with Trump.”
No Comment From ABC
Despite widespread criticism online and among political commentators, ABC News did not respond to requests for comment regarding the claims of bias during the debate.
The exchange has reignited debates about media neutrality and the subtle cues that can influence public perception during high-stakes political events.