I disagree that the moderators can't call bullshit. The rule should be that if Vance or Walz say something that IS NOT TRUE like "Trump won the 2020 election" or "Kamala Harris is possessed by demons" the moderators can say "That is not true".
This "debate " should not be a forum for either party to deliberately lie to the American people.
I was gonna say the same. From the Trump debate, I thought the moderators were correct to fact-check the Springfield rumors. That was a developing situation and the network needed to do that.
Something has to be done. I don’t know what it is though. While I agree every politician stretches the truth now and then, Trump and Vance are in a league of their own. Trump is a rat backed into a corner and will do and say ANYTHING to stay out of jail—I mean win the election. And he has trained his minion, Vance to do the same.
I thought the ABC moderators did a pretty good job with the, "well, there's no evidence of that; let's take up the next question." No argument, just stating an actual fact.
The media’s inability to remove themselves from X by now undermines their credibility in my opinion. It’s not really a good source of objective information now is it? So why? OMG lol
As for journalists inability to fact check in real time. Well, they aren’t real journalists then are they? ABC did a great job real time. And showed how it can be done. CNN was hopeless. The debate debate underscores the decline of American media. Simply appalling.
When a candidate lies there should be a voiceover narrator only audible to the people at home explaining the lie. It should talk over the next thing that candidate says, silencing their next lie. They wouldn't know they've been fact-checked and wouldn't be able to bitch about it immediately. Or there could be a graphic on the screen over the candidate for the next minute saying something like BIG FAT LIAR or PANTS ON FIRE
I like the idea of Walz having a sign. Of course he could only get away with it once. But he could act like he was going to his pocket a couple more times. That might just throw Vance off
I like the liar, liar, pants are on fire
As far as a voiceover only one person could really do that, Mr Cillizza
In the Harris-Trump debate, ABC got it nearly perfect in terms of fact checking live, in my opinion. You have to let a lot of small and medium size lies go in a live format, but letting the Big Lies go without contradiction is a major reason why Goebbels's Big Lie principle works. (See? Trump said 2020 was stolen and everyone just kept talking, he must be right or near right, etc.) No fact checks is potentially too extreme: Walz calls Vance a crack whore or a convicted pedophile or a Russian spy and nobody says Boo? Come on, as the best president of my lifetime would say....
I agree fact checking during the debates is very difficult. But I think CBS is wrong to forbid the moderators from addressing clear lies. I think their effort re the QR code is worth a try. I have another suggestion. The Times and WaPo ( and I guess CBS) will have real time fact checking. I follow those on-line during debates. How about having the editorial staff at CBS review those items and after a break ( or even during real time comments in the "ear') tell the moderators to give the person who advanced the suspect claim to address it? That would take the burden off the moderators and put it on people who have some time to reflect.
I think CBS are, like CNN before them, abdicating their journalistic responsibility and integrity by not making certain, in REAL TIME, when blatant lies are being told to call them out *then*. Sure, there is “shading” to a lot of political speak, but out and out total fabrication, like “they’re eating the dogs”, can’t just be let on the public airwaves without comment.
As we all know, it’s the undecided voter (or the voter that is leaning in a direction but not totally positive about their vote) that has the most to be gained by making certain the total fabrications are called out as they happen.
I think ABC did an excellent job of it. Sure, Trump liked to think that it was “3 on 1”, but if he didn’t lie almost constantly, the moderators wouldn’t have had to say anything. That’s just sour grapes on their part.
Even more important are lies like Democrats permit abortions even after the baby is successfully delivered and The Big Lie of J6 that the elections was stolen and democracy subverted. These lies--and others of this magnitude--are especially dangerous because they fully justify violence by those who believe the lies.
If I had convincing evidence that a presidential candidate had been deprived of his rightful victory by some sort of conspiracy operation and I didn't take up arms to defend democracy, then I'm either a very strong pacifist or a coward. If my local hospital is intentionally killing successfully birthed, living children, then all kinds of mayhem can be justified in response, both legally and morally.
"At the conclusion of a major political debate in Spain, there is a 30-minute fact-checking segment. That’s what’s on TV."
That seems like a terrific idea! Ratings be damned. News and facts may be a "loss-leader" however the "4th estate" is critical to a democracy. Journalists must be allowed to hold institutions accountable, and we need great investigative journalism to get that accountability. Covering debates vigorously should be a bread-and-butter issue for every news outlet. After all, the airwaves were given free by government (citizens) to broadcasters, so in return, the least citizens are owed is free, complete, and fair news coverage
A short story. I was a recruiter for many years. Linked In came out during that time and joined it early. It was a big asset to me
A couple years later Facebook opened up. I wasn’t interested but some of my friends who were big networkers suggested I should join. They said it was good for street cred
I look at X as the same thing for journalists and other professionals
Yes I would love a huge group of journalists and others boycott it (I can’t boycott it because I’ve never used it.)
Unfortunately it has become ubiquitous like cell phones
I disagree that the moderators can't call bullshit. The rule should be that if Vance or Walz say something that IS NOT TRUE like "Trump won the 2020 election" or "Kamala Harris is possessed by demons" the moderators can say "That is not true".
This "debate " should not be a forum for either party to deliberately lie to the American people.
I was gonna say the same. From the Trump debate, I thought the moderators were correct to fact-check the Springfield rumors. That was a developing situation and the network needed to do that.
I suggest that Walz immediately write FALSE on his allotted paper (can he get a Sharpie?) and hold it up when needed. His arm will get tired but hey.
Love it❣️😂
Chris, I agree it's hard to fact check 'shades', but ignoring obvious BS ("THEY'RE EATING OUR PETS!!!") is a cop-out....
Something has to be done. I don’t know what it is though. While I agree every politician stretches the truth now and then, Trump and Vance are in a league of their own. Trump is a rat backed into a corner and will do and say ANYTHING to stay out of jail—I mean win the election. And he has trained his minion, Vance to do the same.
I thought the ABC moderators did a pretty good job with the, "well, there's no evidence of that; let's take up the next question." No argument, just stating an actual fact.
The media’s inability to remove themselves from X by now undermines their credibility in my opinion. It’s not really a good source of objective information now is it? So why? OMG lol
As for journalists inability to fact check in real time. Well, they aren’t real journalists then are they? ABC did a great job real time. And showed how it can be done. CNN was hopeless. The debate debate underscores the decline of American media. Simply appalling.
Thank you so much, Your Highness. Why the hell can't we boycott Twitter, "responsible" media very much included?!?!?!? I haven't been on X in months.
You’re welcome!
When a candidate lies there should be a voiceover narrator only audible to the people at home explaining the lie. It should talk over the next thing that candidate says, silencing their next lie. They wouldn't know they've been fact-checked and wouldn't be able to bitch about it immediately. Or there could be a graphic on the screen over the candidate for the next minute saying something like BIG FAT LIAR or PANTS ON FIRE
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I like the idea of Walz having a sign. Of course he could only get away with it once. But he could act like he was going to his pocket a couple more times. That might just throw Vance off
I like the liar, liar, pants are on fire
As far as a voiceover only one person could really do that, Mr Cillizza
In the Harris-Trump debate, ABC got it nearly perfect in terms of fact checking live, in my opinion. You have to let a lot of small and medium size lies go in a live format, but letting the Big Lies go without contradiction is a major reason why Goebbels's Big Lie principle works. (See? Trump said 2020 was stolen and everyone just kept talking, he must be right or near right, etc.) No fact checks is potentially too extreme: Walz calls Vance a crack whore or a convicted pedophile or a Russian spy and nobody says Boo? Come on, as the best president of my lifetime would say....
I agree fact checking during the debates is very difficult. But I think CBS is wrong to forbid the moderators from addressing clear lies. I think their effort re the QR code is worth a try. I have another suggestion. The Times and WaPo ( and I guess CBS) will have real time fact checking. I follow those on-line during debates. How about having the editorial staff at CBS review those items and after a break ( or even during real time comments in the "ear') tell the moderators to give the person who advanced the suspect claim to address it? That would take the burden off the moderators and put it on people who have some time to reflect.
> there is a 30-minute fact-checking segment.
No one is going to watch this.
Fact checking should be done in real-time. You're just inviting candidates to blatantly lie.
Isn’t this the exact perfect use for a lower third?
I think CBS are, like CNN before them, abdicating their journalistic responsibility and integrity by not making certain, in REAL TIME, when blatant lies are being told to call them out *then*. Sure, there is “shading” to a lot of political speak, but out and out total fabrication, like “they’re eating the dogs”, can’t just be let on the public airwaves without comment.
As we all know, it’s the undecided voter (or the voter that is leaning in a direction but not totally positive about their vote) that has the most to be gained by making certain the total fabrications are called out as they happen.
I think ABC did an excellent job of it. Sure, Trump liked to think that it was “3 on 1”, but if he didn’t lie almost constantly, the moderators wouldn’t have had to say anything. That’s just sour grapes on their part.
Even more important are lies like Democrats permit abortions even after the baby is successfully delivered and The Big Lie of J6 that the elections was stolen and democracy subverted. These lies--and others of this magnitude--are especially dangerous because they fully justify violence by those who believe the lies.
If I had convincing evidence that a presidential candidate had been deprived of his rightful victory by some sort of conspiracy operation and I didn't take up arms to defend democracy, then I'm either a very strong pacifist or a coward. If my local hospital is intentionally killing successfully birthed, living children, then all kinds of mayhem can be justified in response, both legally and morally.
"At the conclusion of a major political debate in Spain, there is a 30-minute fact-checking segment. That’s what’s on TV."
That seems like a terrific idea! Ratings be damned. News and facts may be a "loss-leader" however the "4th estate" is critical to a democracy. Journalists must be allowed to hold institutions accountable, and we need great investigative journalism to get that accountability. Covering debates vigorously should be a bread-and-butter issue for every news outlet. After all, the airwaves were given free by government (citizens) to broadcasters, so in return, the least citizens are owed is free, complete, and fair news coverage
A short story. I was a recruiter for many years. Linked In came out during that time and joined it early. It was a big asset to me
A couple years later Facebook opened up. I wasn’t interested but some of my friends who were big networkers suggested I should join. They said it was good for street cred
I look at X as the same thing for journalists and other professionals
Yes I would love a huge group of journalists and others boycott it (I can’t boycott it because I’ve never used it.)
Unfortunately it has become ubiquitous like cell phones
Tape the debate—run fact checking”real [taped] time”