Questions surrounding Vice President Kamala Harris’s claim of once working at a McDonald’s during her college years have risen without much media scrutiny, pointing to potential inconsistencies and media bias.
For years, Harris has touted her alleged McDonald’s stint to appeal to middle-class voters, despite there being virtually no mention of this job in any public records or her extensive memoirs. The narrative first emerged during her unsuccessful 2019 presidential campaign and has been prominently featured in her current run for the 2024 elections. The claim’s legitimacy has come into sharp focus because there is no corroborating record of her employment at the fast-food chain. Notably absent from her memoirs and a 1987 job application to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, which required a detailed employment history, the supposed McDonald’s job does not appear in any documentation.
Oddly, when pressed for evidence, Harris’s campaign has provided no verification—no old tax documents, no franchise location. This reticence has fueled further speculation and mistrust, especially considering the ease with which the campaign could settle these doubts.
The reaction of the mainstream media to this controversy is equally noteworthy. Outlets like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, the Washington Post, and the New York Times have largely ignored this potentially damaging issue. They either dodge the topic or publish convoluted fact-checks focusing on misleading elements, rather than addressing the core question—did Kamala Harris actually work at McDonald’s? Former President Donald Trump has been vocal in questioning Harris’s claims, but the media’s reaction has been to discredit him rather than investigate the matter.
Fact-checking organizations similarly evade the critical point, instead nitpicking less pertinent details. PolitiFact and Snopes, for instance, have issued statements that McDonald’s never denied Harris’s employment, but notably stop short of confirming it. The media’s apparent aversion to probing this claim suggests a reluctance to uncover a potentially damaging falsehood from a prominent political figure, which could have serious implications for her credibility and campaign.
This pattern of omission underscores broader concerns about media integrity and bias. It seems there’s a deliberate effort to shield Harris from scrutiny that could expose inconsistencies in her narrative. Such protective measures by the media are disconcerting, especially when considering the moral authority journalism is supposed to represent. If a sitting Vice President is potentially fabricating elements of her biography, it’s a serious issue worthy of investigation, not evasion.
The reluctance to confront this issue head-on reveals much about the current media landscape’s priorities and allegiances. It raises crucial questions about the responsibility of the press to impartial truth-seeking, particularly in an age rife with misinformation and political subterfuge. The truth about Vice President Harris’s employment history may seem trivial, yet it symbolizes the larger issue of integrity and transparency expected from public servants and those who report on them. The electorate deserves better, and transparency should be paramount as the nation heads into another election cycle.
Liberty requires eternal vigilance. That's why we work hard to deliver news about issues that threaten your liberty.
