Behar’s Blatant Bias: Daytime Show Used as Political Pulpit

Joy Behar, a long-time co-host of ‘The View’, recently expressed an inflated sense of moral obligation to criticize the Trump administration. Oddly enough, she views her role on the daytime talk show as an avenue for potentially shaping public opinion towards her own biases. Behar, who has managed to maintain her seat at the table for an impressive 26 years, provides her own take on why she remains a fixture of the show.

In her words, her motivation stems from an ill-advised desire to freely express her personal biases. ‘No one can dispute that I like the folks I work with,’ she said. While this may be true, her enjoyment of the show seems to be heavily predicated on the opportunity it provides her to project her political bias to a national audience.

Rather alarmingly, Behar speaks of an ‘obligation’ to denounce the Trump administration. She brazenly admits to leveraging her privileged position within mainstream media as a platform for influencing the minds and hearts of Americans, a job better suited to objective analysts and professionals rather than talk show hosts.

The state of distress she claims our country is in lends her the ‘justification’ to openly promote her side of the political affinity. She takes pleasure from the fact that her words have the potential to guide the opinions of unwary listeners. One might start to question how her actions align with the principles of unbiased journalism.

Behar raves about her ability to present her viewers with ‘authentic’ aspects of various politicians she has interviewed. But, a question arises: Is it authentic if it’s framed within Behar’s personal preference and bias? Is it still authentic when it’s filtered through the lens of a talk show narrative?

She excitedly reminisces her encounters with Hillary Clinton. Behar argues that Clinton appears different when she is running for office, hinting that scrutiny scares her. She also laments that Clinton should have appeared more on ‘The View’, supposedly a strategic misstep on her part.

In fact, Behar seems to harbor a certain dissatisfaction towards Clinton’s campaign strategy. She frivolously implies that the lack of Clinton’s appearance on the show, as if it were a deciding factor, may have been Clinton’s downfall. This hints at a self-serving sense of importance Behar places on her show, confusing it with an essential political platform.

The co-hosts of ‘The View’ also brought up a specific incident involving another co-host, Sunny Hostin and Kamala Harris. During the 2024 campaign, Harris, then Vice President, was asked a seemingly harmless question by Hostin. However, the question and the subsequent response gave some insight into Harris’s possible shortcomings.

Hostin’s query revolved around any missteps Harris may have taken during Joe Biden’s first term. Unsurprisingly, the response to this query drew a lot of attention. Hostin, in defending her question, expressed her satisfaction over Harris’s spot-on prediction of the query, demonstrating her lack of readiness to address certain issues.

Joe Biden joined the show a short while after leaving the White House. In an attempt to absolve Harris of any accountability for her lackluster campaign, Biden defaulted to the easy scapegoats of sexism and racism as explanations. Rather than consider the potential failings of Harris’s policies, he chose to point fingers at the public.

In Biden’s view, critical analysis of Harris’s ability falls secondary to his assertion that she is supremely qualified for the role. This willingness to ignore potential flaws in favor of gender or racial representation raises questions of just how in touch Biden is with the needs of the American people.

Leaning into a disappointing angle, Biden diverted attention from the issues by suggesting sexism and racism were at play. He cavalierly negated any notion that a woman of mixed race was not fit to lead. The former president seems adept at avoiding thoughtful analysis and accountability, instead choosing to play identity politics.

By turning the issue into a matter of race and gender, Biden unfairly dismisses valid criticisms as simple prejudice. This tactic only further induces disillusionment among those who continue to evaluate politicians based on merit and track record, rather than superficial characteristics.

Too often, the conversation steers away from discussing the potential negative impacts of her policies. Biden’s stance looks more like a character defense, rather than a substantive discussion on Harris’s qualifications for presidency. Can qualifications and capability be evaluated objectively in such an environment?

Biden’s refusal to address the substantial issues raised against Harris’s campaign speaks volumes about his own stance. By attributing her underperformance to sexism and racism, he conveniently skirts around any discussion of policy or political acumen.

Overall, the blatant biases of media figures like Behar and the unwillingness of politicians like Biden to confront valid criticism only act as disservice to the public discourse. The lens through which these figures present their narratives may not always align with the truth. It is crucial to maintain a discerning outlook, filtering information through the lens of objectivity rather than succumbing to orchestrated narratives.