Vance Shines, Walz Fumbles: The Debate Exposing Media Lies

---

We’re transforming your reading experience by removing all ads and focusing on high-quality, in-depth geopolitical analysis. Enjoy a cleaner, more enjoyable news experience, free from distractions. Help us continue to provide exceptional content by donating today. Your support ensures we remain independent and reader-funded. Visit linktapgo.com/thedumshow to contribute. Thank you for making The DUM News better than ever! – Matt

---

OPINION: In the highly anticipated vice-presidential debate between Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Tim Walz, the American public saw a clear divide in both style and substance. While Vance came across as polished, confident, and presidential, Walz appeared out of his depth, fumbling his way through key moments in a manner that he himself described as “knuckleheaded.” What stood out just as much as the candidates themselves was the media’s reaction, exposing once again the partisan machinery that seeks to distort reality in favor of its preferred narratives. This debate was a case study in media bias, where fact-checkers manipulated the truth, microphones were suspiciously cut off, and the overall treatment of the two candidates couldn’t have been more different.

The Democrats’ Lie Machine: Smearing Vance from the Start

Before the debate even began, the Democrats had their claws out for J.D. Vance. They labeled him a hardline MAGA partisan, a man supposedly out of touch with mainstream America, known for controversial statements. These attacks on Vance’s character were designed to paint him as an extremist, an untrustworthy politician who only parroted Donald Trump’s talking points. Yet when Vance stepped onto the stage, all of those caricatures fell apart.

From the start, Vance was calm and collected, delivering well-reasoned arguments with a demeanor that showed he was far more than just a loyal Trump supporter. He wasn’t just there to rile up a base but to communicate to the American people in a thoughtful and sincere manner. Even though the Democrats had prepped their attacks, nothing in Vance’s performance that night aligned with the demonized version of him that his political opponents had spent months crafting.

Vance’s poise showed especially in moments where he had to address tough issues like immigration, healthcare, and the economy. While Walz attempted to accuse him of pushing extreme positions, Vance calmly pushed back, offering solutions that were rooted in practicality rather than ideology. It became increasingly evident that the Democrats’ portrayal of Vance as an “out-of-touch extremist” was a fabrication designed to scare voters, not an accurate reflection of the man on stage.

Tim Walz: A Candidate Lost on the National Stage

In stark contrast to Vance, Tim Walz seemed nervous and unprepared for the national spotlight. Walz got off to a rocky start when asked about foreign policy, an area he clearly struggles with. His misstatements, like when he claimed to be “friends with school shooters,” were not only awkward but downright alarming. While Walz likely meant to say that he was friends with families of school shooting victims, his failure to correct himself quickly underscored his inability to stay composed under pressure.

While he found some footing later in the debate when discussing domestic issues like abortion and climate change, Walz’s inconsistencies were glaring. His track record was littered with contradictions and embellishments, particularly when discussing his time in China during the Tiananmen Square protests. Instead of owning up to his misstatement about being in Hong Kong during the protests (when records show he wasn’t there until later), Walz danced around the issue, saying, “I will talk a lot.” That slip-up could very well be a metaphor for his entire debate performance—lots of talking, little substance.

On stage, Walz lacked the polish necessary to present himself as a viable national leader. His nervousness and frequent blunders exposed a man unready for the role he is vying for. Meanwhile, Vance seized the moment, effortlessly portraying himself as the more capable and steady choice.

The Media’s Role in Manufacturing a False Narrative

One of the most telling aspects of the debate wasn’t what happened on stage but what occurred in the media coverage afterward. Vance’s strong performance wasn’t acknowledged in any meaningful way. Instead, the media pounced on select moments, spinning them to create the narrative that suited their agenda. Fact-checkers, for instance, immediately went after Vance on issues like healthcare and immigration, suggesting that he was misleading the public. Yet, upon closer inspection, the fact-checks themselves were highly suspect, nitpicking language rather than confronting the broader points Vance was making.

For example, when Vance discussed the impact of the Biden administration’s policies on inflation and healthcare costs, the media was quick to label his statements as “exaggerations.” But was Vance wrong? Hardly. The inflation crisis is a reality for millions of Americans, and the rising costs of healthcare have been a burden on families across the country. Yet, the media’s fact-checking operations conveniently glossed over the substance of Vance’s arguments, choosing instead to frame him as dishonest. This is exactly why trust in the media has hit an all-time low—their priorities are no longer about informing the public, but about controlling the narrative.

The most egregious example of this bias came during the debate itself when Vance’s microphone was suspiciously cut off. Whether a technical glitch or intentional, it didn’t escape the notice of viewers. When Vance was making one of his strongest points about Kamala Harris’s failure to bring down prices, the sound went out. It was a moment where he could have cemented his dominance in the debate, but instead, his message was lost. The Democrats quickly dismissed this incident, but for many watching, it was a glaring reminder of how the deck is often stacked against conservative voices. This wasn’t the first time a Republican’s mic was cut at a pivotal moment, and it likely won’t be the last.

Why America Must Remain Skeptical of the Media Machine

The debate between Vance and Walz served as yet another reminder that the media cannot be trusted to fairly report on political events. Time and again, the media has shown its hand, spinning facts, cutting microphones, and shaping narratives in ways that suit their ideological preferences. This bias isn’t just a problem for Republicans—it’s a problem for democracy itself. If the media is supposed to be a watchdog for truth, then who is watching the media when they stray from that mission?

Vance’s performance was presidential, polished, and confident. He showed America that he is a leader who can handle the pressures of national leadership without losing his cool. Walz, on the other hand, fumbled his way through the debate, unable to mask his insecurities on the big stage. Yet the media’s coverage didn’t reflect this reality. Instead, they did what they do best: protect their favored candidate while tearing down the one they oppose.

As voters, we must demand better. We deserve a media that doesn’t pick sides, a media that is committed to fairness and accuracy rather than advancing its own agenda. The debate between Vance and Walz was a clear example of how the media continues to manipulate the public into seeing what they want us to see, rather than what actually happened. The question is: how much longer will Americans put up with it?

In the end, while this debate may not shift the trajectory of the race, it did shine a spotlight on a critical issue in American politics—the role of the media as both kingmaker and gatekeeper. It’s time for voters to see through the lies and distortions and start holding both the media and our leaders accountable. J.D. Vance proved he’s up to the task; the real question is, can the media say the same for themselves?