Fact Check: Fact Checking During Debates Is Bad For Everyone

How much does January 6th matter to independents?

Despite J.D. Vance’s strong debate performance, Republicans continued to criticize the moderators Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell. In the most tense moment of the otherwise midwestern debate, CBS fact-checked Vance on Haitian migrants and the 2020 election, which sparked immediate backlash from Republicans as the network initially pledged to not do live fact checking.

Trump and other Republicans, including Marco Rubio and Brit Hume, joined in criticizing CBS.

And so, we have yet another refrain of “to fact check, or not to fact check.”

The argument of the Checkers: you cannot allow disinformation to spread on a massive scale like a live debate. Lies need to be challenged at the point of utterance and the people most capable to do so are the moderators.

The argument for the Let Them Players: fact checking is subjective and debates are supposed to be a chance for voters to see candidates interact with each other. Let the candidates call out lies, moderators should be asking relevant questions and keeping the show on time.

My take? Live fact checking not only makes debates worse, it creates perverse incentives for candidates and actively erodes the media’s ability to correct the record.

Let’s take those in reverse order.

The job of a moderator is hard. You have to ask questions, monitor time and corral massive egos on live television. Fact checking, by its very nature, is not a drive by pursuit. It should be substantive and precise. To use the live debate moderator as the tool to attempt to correct a lie means you are hoping a television personality can recall and reproduce a fact. Let me tell you, television anchors are not famous for improv. There was a whole documentary about it.

Television anchors are journalism-flavored entertainers selected because the shape of their massive skulls reflects studio lights in a manor that makes you want to buy paper towels when they throw to break.

There is also the ability for a live fact check to be used as a weapon by one of the candidates on stage, therefore making what should be an innocuous correcting of the record into the most memorable moment of the night. Just ask Candy Crowley. In 2012, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were sparring on if Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” when he first announced the deaths of that attack in the Rose Garden.

Obama: Check the transcripts…

Crowley: He did in fact, sir, call it an act of terror…

Obama: Can say that louder, Candy?

Democrats collectively did a back flip! Their boy boomed that mormon creep!

But was it a two on one beat down?

Let’s do a 12-year-old fact check on Candy Crowley’s fact check. The transcript is a little fuzzy!

Yes, Obama does say the phrase “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” But it comes after his memorialization of the September 11th, 2001 attacks and not the more recent tragedy in Libya.

So did he mean Benghazi (which was still being investigated at the time) was an act or terror? Or that 9/11 (the definition of terror) was terrorism? The reality is it’s slick political wording that can go either way depending on how you want to defend it.

Hyperbole and truth stretching is the bread and butter of politics. The good practitioners do it well, the bad ones do it poorly.

Could Obama have defended himself? Yes. Was the record clear enough to require a real time update from the moderator? In my opinion? No.

People tune into debates to see their candidate win or lose. No one has ever tuned in for the moderators.

So what would I do?

I would make an immediate fact checking special to air directly after a debate. I’d source the show with respected voices across the political spectrum and a staff that could pull numbers on the fly.

The fact checks would be nuanced, never aiming for a true or false designation, but rather a fuller understanding of the issue. Lies will stand out, the American public will learn and the debate itself will flow smoother.

Campaigns will still pull clips favorable to them and post them on social media.

But at least those poor television anchors can stop pretending to be street cops on the Fibber Beat.

Anyhow, let’s forget this entire line of conversation and have the exact same argument in four years…

---

Kenny

Credit where it's due, that JD Vance guy achieved the Herculean task of making that JD Vance guy seem likable.

Pound for pound, that may be one of the best political debate performances I've seen.

Unfortunately for him, the only take away will be that Jan 6th question at the end.

The question I dare not ask too loud is… among independents who will decide this election… how much do they care about January 6th? Certainly Democratic partisans care a lot, but they were never voting for Trump anyway. It’s not a thing that Trump likes talking about, so it’s certainly not a good thing. But amongst undecideds, where does it rank?

Here is how Pew Research broke it down in September:

More than four-in-ten voters (46%) say Trump broke the law in an effort to change the outcome of the 2020 election, while another 14% say he did something wrong but did not break the law. Another 27% say Trump did nothing wrong. These views are largely unchanged since April. While Harris supporters overwhelmingly say Trump broke the law (88% say this), Trump backers are divided: 54% say he did nothing wrong while 27% say either he did something wrong or broke the law. Trump supporters (18%) are more likely than Harris supporters (7%) to say they are not sure.

46% would cover partisan Democrats and Democratic leaners. So the question is, do the 14% that believe Trump did something wrong but not illegal believe that January 6th is disqualifying? On the other side, if they don’t think what he did was illegal how do they view Trump’s indictments in DC and Georgia?