The much-hyped “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris has turned into a PR disaster, not just for Harris but for CBS News as well. Once again, the network seems to have been caught red-handed playing fast and loose with the facts, this time by heavily editing Harris’s responses in an attempt to polish her image. It’s a tactic that didn’t go unnoticed by her critics—or even some of her supporters, who saw through the flimsy attempt to make her answers appear more coherent and substantive than they really were.

During the interview teaser released Sunday, CBS correspondent Bill Whitaker posed a tough question to Harris about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying, “But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.” Harris’s response in the teaser was a classic case of her infamous word salad—long-winded, vague, and utterly lacking in any meaningful substance. Her critics seized on it as yet another example of her inability to deliver a clear, concise answer when it matters most.

But when the “full” interview aired Monday night, viewers were surprised to find that Harris’s answer had magically changed. Instead of the rambling response shown in the teaser, Harris delivered a far more measured and structured reply: “We are not gonna stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.” The contrast between the two clips was glaring, raising serious questions about the integrity of CBS’s editing process.

KAMALA on ISRAEL: Well, Bill … the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.

WHAT? 😳 pic.twitter.com/7PWQ0JcLAr

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 6, 2024

This isn’t the first time CBS News and “60 Minutes” have found themselves embroiled in a controversy over manipulative editing. Back in 2021, they were busted for deceptively editing an interview with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, selectively cutting footage to suggest he had racially biased motivations in how the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was conducted in his state. It was a transparent hit job then, and it seems like history is repeating itself now with Harris.

What’s worse, people on social media have pointed out another potential manipulation. Some claimed that CBS had repurposed a response Harris gave to a different question in the teaser clip and swapped it into the “full” interview to make her look better. Upon further review, the answers were similar but not identical, debunking that specific claim. Still, the fact remains that CBS clearly went to great lengths to smooth over Harris’s rough edges in a way that feels anything but genuine.

Remember Kamala’s word salad answer about Israel on 60 Minutes? It’s gone.

This is what many Americans will now see. pic.twitter.com/H4w7btDv6x

— MAZE (@mazemoore) October 8, 2024

At a time when media trust is already at rock-bottom levels, this kind of transparent spin does nothing but deepen public cynicism toward the so-called “mainstream” press. When a major news outlet like CBS deliberately edits an interview to protect a political figure, it only validates what conservatives and others have been saying for years: the corporate media can’t be trusted to deliver the truth without a partisan agenda.

The bigger question CBS News and “60 Minutes” must answer is simple: who made the decision to edit out Harris’s initial fumbling answer, and why? Was this directive coming from higher up the chain, or was it the result of producers trying to salvage what they knew was a disastrous interview performance? The American public deserves some transparency, especially given the critical importance of honest journalism in holding politicians accountable.

Kamala Harris’s critics have long accused her of being nothing more than an “empty suit,” a politician who speaks in platitudes without offering anything substantive. This latest “60 Minutes” debacle only serves to reinforce that narrative. If her answers are so consistently weak that they require heavy editing to make them presentable, what does that say about her readiness to lead the nation?