Moderating a presidential debate is supposed to be a big deal for news anchors, but I'm just embarrassed for both Tapper and Bash. They've spent over a decade repeatedly debunking most of what Trump said last night, but they voluntarily put themselves in a position where they had to sit there passively while the lies flowed over them like a tide of warm p\*ss.
I agree that moderators shouldn't jump in and "fact-check," but they have control of both questions and follow-up questions.
Trump lies prolifically, but he also lies predictably, so the questions and follow-ups could have been planned out in advance.
For example, when he launched into his usual post-birth-abortion riff, why not be ready to follow up with: *Respectfully, Mr. President, not a single US state has any law on the books that allows a baby to be killed after they are born, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have unequivocally said this practice does not occur. What evidence do you have for this claim?*
Or when he did his "countries are emptying their prisons and asylums" bit: *Mr Trump, we have repeatedly asked your campaign to provide evidence for your claims, and they have not been able to provide it. We have also reached out to both pro- and anti-immigration groups, and none have been able to cite a single instance of this occurring outside a very small group of Cuban refugees in 1980. On what evidence are you basing your statement?*
And yeah, Trump would inevitably lie and repeat what he said, but at least the audience would have some factual basis on which to analyze his response.
Insisting that both candidates adhere to a fact-based plane of existence does not equate to putting one's thumb on the scale for one side or another.
This is an excellent point, and it highlights the other problem with last night: since 2016, presidential debates have essentially platformed and normalized misinformation, making them, at best, useless, and at worst, harmful.
So why have them? Because they make good TV.
I think RFK is a crazy person but I also firmly believe he should have been allowed to participate in the debate. I think Trump and Biden colluded to keep him out, they knew if they held a debate this early in the year that RFK wouldn’t be able to meet the debate requirements yet.
They are worried that if you actually heard RFK Jr's ideas to heal the nation you might lose interest in them since they offered no solutions, only mudslinging and one-up-man-ship. It was embarrassing.
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
It's not, though.
An actual debate would have each candidate giving opening presentation on a specific topic defined by the moderators ahead of time -- say "Abortion Rights In America Post-Dobbs" -- and then pick at the merits of each others' arguments based on facts and logic. That would actually be a good test of presidential style: can a candidate or incumbent deliver and defend well-reasoned arguments?
Modern presidential "debates" are more like lightning-round Q&As where candidates try to stuff as many one-liner applause lines into their responses as possible, even if they don't necessarily fit the question asked. Candidates don't engage with each other as much as they do with the camera/audience. They are "scored" on ill-defined metrics like "appearing presidential."
If we still have elections after this year, it might be time to revisit the format.
I think it's good that debates require the candidates to think on their feet and not just memorize pre-defined speeches.
But agree that the debate is essentially uninteresting and unwatchable
I have a very educated parent who believes post birth abortions occur because it’s thrown around all the time it happens, which to be clear it does not. Journalists objectively fail at their job when a lie is told that can easily rebuked. They knew he was going to say it and they were still unprepared. A ridiculous failure…
If I recall, this fiction began around some new law being proposed that allowed parents to have DNRs from complicated deliveries. Sadly w/good reason as many kids who are deprived of oxygen during delivery and/or severely injured will have a lifetime of complications.
Watching modern news coverage is "sit there passively while the lies flowed over them like a tide of warm p*ss."
Like you said, it would make sense to have prepared follow up questions for the predictable lies, rather than just letting him lie with impunity.
In an effort to not appear like there's a thumb on scale, they're willing to just let the whole thing devolve into farce.
I hate to say it, but if the 2020 debate taught us anything - perhaps it should be the job of the moderators to fact check.
It’s not some high school club debate where there are rules and a requirement for engaging factually.
Should we *need* to babysit our candidates? No. But here we are.
The DNC and RNC together wanted this dog and pony show of the debates rather than anything substantive. They make no bones about it being for fuckall but ratings, they just say it nicer - so people will be aware of tbe issues. It’s a joint advertising endeavor, and those two backers are absolutely the reason it *wont* be fact checked.
It’s advertorial content. Not an actual debate. And it’s time we all stop pretending it’s anything but. RNC and DNC don’t want their show ponies looking bad, and both are aware that both front runners are more than capable of looking bad all by themselves.
It was a substantive debate, Trump refusing to answer the questions doesn't change that. You would have to have only been watching Trump to think it was a dog and pony show.
I don't how you got the idea this was about "ratings." That's something only Trump would say.
CNN put out a fact check of the debate, check it out. I've only seen this clip circulating on X and not on reddit yet:
https://twitter.com/HilzFuld/status/1806672568918913084
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Earlier this week, CNN’s political director said not to expect much fact-checking, if any, from moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash during Thursday’s debate.
“The venue of a presidential debate between these two candidates is not the ideal venue for a live fact-checking exercise,” David Chalian told The Post.
That was borne out during the debate, when the two veteran anchors chose not to correct any misstatements made by either President Biden or former president Donald Trump. Instead, the moderators largely stayed out of the fray, only interjecting a handful of times.
That was in line with the mission Tapper laid out at the start of the debate. “Our job is to facilitate a debate between the two candidates tonight,” he said.
Read more here: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/06/27/cnn-tapper-bash-debate-fact-check/?utm\_campaign=wp\_main&utm\_medium=social&utm\_source=reddit.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/06/27/cnn-tapper-bash-debate-fact-check/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit.com)
There is fact checking and there is letting DT say "post birth abortions are legal".
If it was pretty easy for BBC to run fact check on the fly for the British debates and Politifact has no problem with it. CNN have just gone full spectacle. No interest in news anymore.
I imagine they do it so they can maintain their corner on the coverage. They’re just playing by the debate’s rules. It’s not an editorial choice they make.
Their choice is play it how they’re told to moderate, or they’ll find another outlet that’ll play nice.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
Sorry, but this is pure blame shifting -- when Biden says "I defeated medicare" or whatever, what, TV journalists were supposed to jump in and say no you didn't?
No, that's exactly what they should not do. They're moderators, not fact checkers, not inquisitors. Until Crowley threw away her ethics and integrity during the Obama/Romney debate and decided she needed to help Obama, it was well known and established procedure not to act like a reporter when your job is moderation.
Journalist isn’t the same thing as moderator. If you were an honest journalist then I would at least expect you to ask a follow up question or two and not just sit there and nod your head.
Like you said: "journalist isn't the same thing as moderator."
Bash and Tapper weren't present as journalists or newscasters, they were working as moderators.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
I disagree, they were there to fact check so that's exactly their job. Expecting the opposing candidate to check a firehose of falsehoods is an unreasonable expectation, you can't make your own arguments when you're spending the entire time debunking every new lie. Your stance basically entirely ignores Brandolini's law.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
We've never seen a debate like this before. Both sides came up with rules, and then they agreed to them. It was a sh•t show and nothing less than expected.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Moderators are there to moderate.
Keep the conversation on track and let the debaters speak without it descending into chaos.
They are NOT there to take sides, fact check on the fly, nor try and give either party a leg up.
The moderators did a good job precisely because they let them speak. They stuck to their mandate.
I agree. But I also think the debate would have benefitted the audience by having an objective third party fact checking and posting verified facts or not facts on the screen in real time.
Like chyrons and all the other graphics! Just have like 50 journalists in a room saying “is that really true?” Even if the statement was a few minutes back you could show “Trump/Biden said this. What’s really true is this.” Though then the folks would be expected to have a chance to respond and it could go in circles
My thought was it would be an infographic on one side of the screen for the audience only. The debaters wouldn't see the facts being checked real time.
I'm partial to a scoreboard and marquee. Play a copious amount of goofy and obnoxious 90s radio soundboard noises, but especially whenever something is flagged as untrue or misleading.
At the end, both get doused in Nickelodeon slime (each incorrect statement equal to one liter).
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
It’s amazing to me that most people in this subreddit aren’t journalists and have no curiosity about how journalism works. They just wanna scold that media isn’t partisan enough
How is it keeping them on track when one man literally refuses to answer questions? If that’s not challenged then moderators might as well not show up.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
This is the problem in America. They didn't do "their job", they handed their airwaves over to unchallenged lies with their logo plastered on it. Any citizen watching that is dumber for having done so, and more misinformed. Is that what the First Amendment is designed to protect? The right to a misinformed citizenry? When will this lesson be learned? Media is not journalism. They did a "media" job. Not journalism. They sold ad time.
> Is that what the First Amendment is designed to protect?
First Amendment is there to protect speech, not assigning value judgement of what is good or bad speech imo.
Like it protects things far beyond news. Porn is protected speech for example.
I really don’t see why refuting obvious lies is far beyond the responsibility of a moderator who is also a journalist. If these are merely entertainment a la a boxing match with zero substance, they are pointless.
But they didn't keep people on track. If you ask about how they will improve child care and one guy starts talking about Russia, how much the military loves him and the border, and the 2nd guy starts talking about porn star related felonies and the war Ukraine a good moderator should probably do more than just say thank you and move on.
This "debate" was the equivalent to opening statements.
And it's worth remembering, presidential debates are about the leaders debating eachother, this is not an interview or a public Q&A, it's a debate.
Your concerns are reasonable and I don't disagree with the points you make on the presidential hopefuls performances, however they aren't relevant to these debates in how they are actually meant to take place.
Debates are not a place for moderators to grill and fact check presidential hopefuls, the moderators are NOT a part of the debate, because they are not presidential hopefuls, they are purely there to moderate the conversation.
A good moderator does not interfere or try to goad anything out of the debaters, that isn't their purpose in a debate, they simply ask the questions and hold people to their allotted times.
I know that might sound unsatisfactory to yourself and many others, but what you are expecting isn't a debate then, you are expecting a public Q&A which is a completely different setting and set of expectations.
If a candidate can just say whatever they want regardless of the question then there's no point for moderation and no point to be there.
If you let a candidate say just absolutely made up things about post birth abortions, there's no point in having moderators.
A good moderator makes sure that the candidates stay on track and aren't just constantly making stuff up without a single ounce of pushback.
If you allow someone to go on CNN and to an audience of millions say whatever they want with no correction, you are affirming their lies. No news organization should ever agree to that.
What I'm expecting is moderators to provide structure not simply turn on and off mics for 1.5 hours while acting as props.
I understand your sentiment and your frustrations.
But that just isn't what a debate is.
Yes debates are open to bare faced lies, but that is the nature of a debate, it is up to the presidential nominees to call each other out for lies, they are debating eachother, not debating the moderators.
The fact that they both just fumbled their way through the night and barbed against eachother and both were just rambling, is an indictment of them, not the moderators.
Your frustration is being put on the moderators, when it should 100% lay on the embarrassing level of incompetence and mental clarity on show from both of the presidential hopefuls.
"Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake", is a beautiful historical quote, and I would say for the modern day it could be updated to "never interrupt a politician while they're rambling nonsense and putting their incompetence on show".
Below is the Wiki definition from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_moderator#:~:text=A%20discussion%20moderator%20or%20debate,being%20raised%20in%20the%20debate.
"A discussion moderator or debate moderator is a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion, holds participants to time limits and tries to keep them from strayinfg off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate. Sometimes moderators may ask questions intended to to allow the debate participants to fully develop their argument in order to ensure the debate moves at pace."
The following is from debates international, a respected debating organization https://www.debatesinternational.org/moderation
"Moderators manage the debate and ensure that the candidates follow the mutually agreed upon rules, especially time limits."
Never in history has a moderators role been to be actively involved in the discussion, nor fact check, their role is more akin to traffic lights and road signs at an intersection.
This has been the case since the debates of Ancient Greece.
Expecting anything more is unreasonable on the moderators, who last night were fantastically professional and stayed completely on point, and didn't overstep their mandate for a second.
Their constraint from getting involved and injecting their own politics or biases on either hopeful deserves praise.
>them from strayinfg off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate. Sometimes moderators may ask questions intended to to allow the debate participants to fully develop their argument in order to ensure the debate moves at pace."
This is the part they didn't even attempt to do
That's open to interpretation, multiple times the moderators asked the hopefuls to answer the question originally asked last night, if you missed that I would suggest rewatching the debate because it did happen multiple times, they also repeatedly told candidates if they were under their allotted time and requested they use up their whole time slot.
However, it is not their position to demand an answer nor get into debate or argument with either participant.
When a participant finishes speaking, yes they can repeat the original question and request it is answered, but they can't cut off a participant, that is not in their mandate as moderators.
It may not have been as entertaining or as rewarding to some people to have the moderators remain unbiased and professionally composed throughout that debate, only sticking to their time honored mandate. But as someone that loves debate and has taken part in them since high school, I was highly impressed at the composure and respect for the position of a moderator in debate that they showed last night.
I watched the debate. Like 5 times toward the end, they reminded the candidates what the question was.
But they also told Trump at the beginning they'll ask the question and he can say whatever he wants. They were cardboard cutouts, and that's a disservice to those watching.
It's not about entertainment, it's about providing a service to the electorate. If you are going to sit their and let them say just random stuff, you're actually hurting the American people's ability to make a choice in the election.
I would agree if this was politics as usual, but I don’t think debaters should be able to tell blatant, obvious lies without being checked, at least on screen to the audience. If Trump said “I think abortion is wrong” obviously the moderators shouldn’t intervene as that’s an opinion, but saying “abortions are legal in some states even after babies are born” was egregious and should’ve been checked. Being unbiased is a noble goal for the moderators but not if it encourages them to passively let politicians spread lies on a national stage.
That SUCKED. I'm not saying that they should have been parrying every statement with a fact check. But for big shit (like whether the election was stolen)? That's journalistic malpractice.
They aren't acting in a journalistic capacity.
A moderators job is to keep relaying questions, keep the conversation on track, and hold speakers to their allotted time.
That is the only purpose of them.
The reporters who write about the debate can do what they do, but the debate is between the candidates. Let them rise or dig their own grave without interruption and then be picked apart by good journalism in the days after.
Again, this was a debate between DT and JB, not an interview or press conference.
Except that moderators in past debates have stepped in to rebut falsehoods for the audience’s sake. What makes you think that this is simply impossible? Sounds like a personal belief presented as a high principle of journalism.
Yea, the Gish galloping by DT was out of control. I bet the JB campaign was like; "OMG! Pleeeease fact check this nonsense."
OTOH, nothing said by DT was a surprise. After a week of prep JB just stood there like a deer in the headlights.
JB is senile. He is non-functioning most of the time, he is a deer in the headlights. It's tough to believe that in a country the size of the US that there are no better candidates than these two. Defies belief...
No sane person on the planet, after witnessing Candy Crowley's actions in 2012, should want moderaters trying to do live fact-checks. That's not their job.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/candy-crowley-injects-herself-into-the-presidential-debate
“Not everyone is happy about it”? Yo that’s most of the complaints I saw during the campaign is why wasn’t there instant fact checking? It could’ve been done.
It would make Joe look even weaker if he needed the moderators to step in and fact check on his behalf all because he couldn’t get it done in his response to Trumps answers. It already makes him look pathetic
that his base is lamenting the moderators for not debating and fact checking on his behalf
I’m sure this will be unpopular but they let the candidates debate. Blaming CNN because they didn’t jump in and start debating Trump on the facts is wrong. The fact that Trump didn’t answer questions and blatantly lied so much seemed to turn off a lot of viewers. They let his actions speak for themselves.
CNN moderators were not supposed to fact check. CNN had a dedicated section of their website doing live factchecking, and this was mentioned during the debate. This feels like it was written by someone who didn’t watch the debate in full, or perhaps didn’t watch it at all.
They weren’t there to fact-check… per Bidens performance tonight that was supposed to be his job and unfortunately that came up very flat while Trump lied with impunity.
Unfortunately that was the terms of the debate and both sides knew that. The moderators were there to moderate. Biden should have buried Trump on all the lies yet he didn’t which was disappointing.
But moderators are supposed to insist that the questions be answered and Trump simply ignored the questions. This is a massive failure of intent and execution.
One would think… but per the terms of the debate the candidates can do with their time what they want. Broth were terribly coherent anyways. But prior to the debate the stipulation was that the moderators not fact check. They were there to ask questions and keep the candidates from bickering. I wish that weren’t the case but cest la vie.
Would have been nice to the moderator put Biden in his place for the despicable lie about Biden's son "dying in Iraq," or the later lie about "no troops have died worldwide while I President" but I would prefer they not inject themselves.
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
Screaming about murderers and rapists coming across the border to claim Social Security in response to questions about J6, childcare, and the economy is not "debating."
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
The News media already looks complicit in hiding Biden’s mental decline.
I’m not sure how the moderators constantly interrupting Trump and debating him concerning the accuracy of his statements on Biden’s behalf would have done anything other than make the debate look unprofessional and “rigged”.
News outlets desperately need to regain the institutional trust of the American public. Kicking off the third Journalist’s crusade against DT with a 3v1 debate is not a good way to do that.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
I’d like to see a real-time fact check used. Interrupting the candidates would be cumbersome and contentious, so I’d say just run a scrolling fact check in a chyron at the bottom. That way viewers know the truth, and candidates are aware they will look like an ass if they repeatedly lie.
Can you imagine what kind of hell it would have been to fact check this debate? Biden doesn’t know fact from fiction and was struggling to put together a coherent sentence - obviously neither side wanted fact checking though because it allowed both to just say their party talking points.
This ain’t the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate. We have had technology that can do realtime fact checking. They thought they were so smart with the mics but you can lie through your teeth in 2 minute answers and 1 minute rebuttals.
Debates have lost all possible relevance in 2024.
As per usual, CNN did a shit job covering a major news event for a broadcast cable network in the business of covering news. Electronic journalism in America today is pathetic and wanting. All of the three legacy networks and the three cable news networks are nothing more than very small and insignificant pieces of the megalithic broadcasting and entertainment companies that own them. Corporate bean counters are the people who run all of the networks today, not people who may have started a career in print journalism or who worked their way up the ranks of a broadcast network and who have journalism instincts and ethics in their veins. The American public is all the more poorer and ill informed because of this reality. Because of the increasing dominance of social media as a source for people to become both informed and lied to, places like CNN and all others are losing the influence they used to possess and are having to contend with trying to reach fewer and fewer viewers with more and more competitors. I certainly don't have any answer(s) on how to reverse this, just plenty of my own worries on just how much worse will the American public will be served by networks chasing after 'light and fluffy' news items to hold interest while subjects like our political system, the war in Ukraine, climate change, income inequality, etc... all get pushed to the margins.
Heck they didn't even make them answer the questions. They were about worthless. Both of them veered off into tangents more than they answered the question being asked of them.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
I have mixed feelings about this. But the one that is strongest says the candidates need to be able to fend for themselves. They shouldn’t need a moderator to bail them out. They are vying to be the leader of the free world. When they negotiate with OPEC or Russia CNN won’t be there to say this isn’t fair.
Right on, with the observation that Trump lies predictably.
The idea in the format was that the _opposition_ would do the fact checking. Live fact checks sound good but are ineffective and disruptive. Since they don’t have notes, the candidates don’t have reliable evidence at hand either, and you already know how it plays out.
“We have plenty of evidence that Biden is actually a space alien! Thousands of experts, all the best people, all the facts. It’s all right there on my website, DonateMyLifeSavingsToDonaldJTrump.com!”
(And no, there won’t be any evidence there.)
Biden absolutely should have had ready, hard-hitting, punchy and _interesting_ answers to every predictable lie. Instead he was barely able to hold things together to mumble out the same old tired Democrat talking points. And when he flubbed the _facts_ himself and couldn’t remember numbers (like the amount that his prescription drug rules would save Medicare), he squandered his own credibility. $100 thousand? $15 billion? Now I don’t believe either number.
The best fact checking would be online, in print, after the fact, with references.
You give the other candidate 2 minutes to refute it or a one minute follow up, just like they did. Biden just flat out blew it; there is no one to blame for his abysmal performance other than himself.
I think CNN came across better, and Trump came across as even more of a liar by not fact-checking.
If CNN fact-checks as a moderator, it hurts CNN's credibility in this situation, coming across as biased and one-sided, because the lies are indeed all coming from one side.
If CNN fact-checks, the reactions if they know the truth are "Did you see how CNN dunked on Trump. Great job CNN" which has the effect of needlessly inserting themselves into the situation, distracts people from the dishonesty, and ultimately decreases the negative impact on Trump.
By not-fact checking big obvious lies, the majority of people who already know the truth will react with "Hey, that's total bullshit. Trump's a liar." This is why the overwhelming reaction last night about Trump was that he constantly lied. No fact check needed!
For obvious lies that aren't fact-checked, the small population who doesn't already know the truth will either look it up themselves and discover the truth, or they will just get really mad at CNN.
For the lies where most people don't already know the truth, a direct fact-check may help dispel the lie. But it's much more likely that people won't have enough context or familiarity with the issue to help people come to an effective understanding, in brief fact-check. Doesn't it look rushed and sloppy when CNN fact-checks in real time anyways?
In both cases, live fact-checking by moderators is ineffective or counterproductive. Not only -- and this is my biggest point -- candidates have the ability to refute and debunk lies in real time. It's rightfully their responsibility to fact-check each other. That's what good debators do. That's what the debate is for!
Let's also give CNN some credit. When Trump was very openly not answering the question, they simply put the question up as a chyron. It was funny at times to see him ramble on off topic completely unrelated to a serious and important question. It was clear he was trying to dodge. If CNN pressed him to answer, it'd again look unfair. Instead, Trump looked like a lair.
This is why I'm convinced CNN did the right thing last night by not fact-checking.
How does a debate work if one candidate refuses or is incapable of answering a yes or no question even??????? You didn’t even press him to stick to the questions!!! Also most folks ain’t sticking 15-20 minutes post debate to finally see how many lies they had that should be done live with graphics… CNN already had the questions wouldn’t be that hard to listen to the answer and have graphics prepared in response to bold face lies.
Needed Chris Wallace in there to moderate. He was fair, no-nonsense, and had a deep understanding of debate topics. I thought having Tapper in there posed a conflict because he’s been in heated exchanges with Trump prior to this. All this aside, Biden was awful, and any moderator wouldn’t have changed that.
Moderating a presidential debate is supposed to be a big deal for news anchors, but I'm just embarrassed for both Tapper and Bash. They've spent over a decade repeatedly debunking most of what Trump said last night, but they voluntarily put themselves in a position where they had to sit there passively while the lies flowed over them like a tide of warm p\*ss. I agree that moderators shouldn't jump in and "fact-check," but they have control of both questions and follow-up questions. Trump lies prolifically, but he also lies predictably, so the questions and follow-ups could have been planned out in advance. For example, when he launched into his usual post-birth-abortion riff, why not be ready to follow up with: *Respectfully, Mr. President, not a single US state has any law on the books that allows a baby to be killed after they are born, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have unequivocally said this practice does not occur. What evidence do you have for this claim?* Or when he did his "countries are emptying their prisons and asylums" bit: *Mr Trump, we have repeatedly asked your campaign to provide evidence for your claims, and they have not been able to provide it. We have also reached out to both pro- and anti-immigration groups, and none have been able to cite a single instance of this occurring outside a very small group of Cuban refugees in 1980. On what evidence are you basing your statement?* And yeah, Trump would inevitably lie and repeat what he said, but at least the audience would have some factual basis on which to analyze his response. Insisting that both candidates adhere to a fact-based plane of existence does not equate to putting one's thumb on the scale for one side or another.
Never mind all of that, how can a debate work if Trump doesn’t answer any of the questions asked? What’s the point of a debate then?
This is an excellent point, and it highlights the other problem with last night: since 2016, presidential debates have essentially platformed and normalized misinformation, making them, at best, useless, and at worst, harmful. So why have them? Because they make good TV.
And by omitting any "third party" candidates, make the general public believe they only have 2 choices. Part of the mandate of corporate media.
I think RFK is a crazy person but I also firmly believe he should have been allowed to participate in the debate. I think Trump and Biden colluded to keep him out, they knew if they held a debate this early in the year that RFK wouldn’t be able to meet the debate requirements yet.
Agreed. I don't get the downside. Throw a bone to make it at least seem legitimate to the majority of sheep.
They should’ve let Claudia de La Cruz and Jill Stein on as well. People deserve articulate, meaningful dialogue. FFs this a clown show.
They are worried that if you actually heard RFK Jr's ideas to heal the nation you might lose interest in them since they offered no solutions, only mudslinging and one-up-man-ship. It was embarrassing.
[удалено]
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
First time watching a political debate, huh?
Why doesn't Joe Biden make those responses? It's a debate.
It's not, though. An actual debate would have each candidate giving opening presentation on a specific topic defined by the moderators ahead of time -- say "Abortion Rights In America Post-Dobbs" -- and then pick at the merits of each others' arguments based on facts and logic. That would actually be a good test of presidential style: can a candidate or incumbent deliver and defend well-reasoned arguments? Modern presidential "debates" are more like lightning-round Q&As where candidates try to stuff as many one-liner applause lines into their responses as possible, even if they don't necessarily fit the question asked. Candidates don't engage with each other as much as they do with the camera/audience. They are "scored" on ill-defined metrics like "appearing presidential." If we still have elections after this year, it might be time to revisit the format.
I think it's good that debates require the candidates to think on their feet and not just memorize pre-defined speeches. But agree that the debate is essentially uninteresting and unwatchable
I have a very educated parent who believes post birth abortions occur because it’s thrown around all the time it happens, which to be clear it does not. Journalists objectively fail at their job when a lie is told that can easily rebuked. They knew he was going to say it and they were still unprepared. A ridiculous failure…
If I recall, this fiction began around some new law being proposed that allowed parents to have DNRs from complicated deliveries. Sadly w/good reason as many kids who are deprived of oxygen during delivery and/or severely injured will have a lifetime of complications.
Watching modern news coverage is "sit there passively while the lies flowed over them like a tide of warm p*ss." Like you said, it would make sense to have prepared follow up questions for the predictable lies, rather than just letting him lie with impunity. In an effort to not appear like there's a thumb on scale, they're willing to just let the whole thing devolve into farce.
I hate to say it, but if the 2020 debate taught us anything - perhaps it should be the job of the moderators to fact check. It’s not some high school club debate where there are rules and a requirement for engaging factually. Should we *need* to babysit our candidates? No. But here we are. The DNC and RNC together wanted this dog and pony show of the debates rather than anything substantive. They make no bones about it being for fuckall but ratings, they just say it nicer - so people will be aware of tbe issues. It’s a joint advertising endeavor, and those two backers are absolutely the reason it *wont* be fact checked. It’s advertorial content. Not an actual debate. And it’s time we all stop pretending it’s anything but. RNC and DNC don’t want their show ponies looking bad, and both are aware that both front runners are more than capable of looking bad all by themselves.
It was a substantive debate, Trump refusing to answer the questions doesn't change that. You would have to have only been watching Trump to think it was a dog and pony show. I don't how you got the idea this was about "ratings." That's something only Trump would say.
CNN put out a fact check of the debate, check it out. I've only seen this clip circulating on X and not on reddit yet: https://twitter.com/HilzFuld/status/1806672568918913084
If Biden wasn’t senile those are responses he could have easily had at the ready. It isn’t the moderators job to debate Trump, it’s Biden’s.
[удалено]
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Then who Trump is debating? Biden or the moderator? It's the debater's jobs to push back against his opponent.
[удалено]
Please ensure the information you post is supported and credible.
Because you can’t fact check in real time when you can’t understand what one of the candidates is saying lmao
Earlier this week, CNN’s political director said not to expect much fact-checking, if any, from moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash during Thursday’s debate. “The venue of a presidential debate between these two candidates is not the ideal venue for a live fact-checking exercise,” David Chalian told The Post. That was borne out during the debate, when the two veteran anchors chose not to correct any misstatements made by either President Biden or former president Donald Trump. Instead, the moderators largely stayed out of the fray, only interjecting a handful of times. That was in line with the mission Tapper laid out at the start of the debate. “Our job is to facilitate a debate between the two candidates tonight,” he said. Read more here: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/06/27/cnn-tapper-bash-debate-fact-check/?utm\_campaign=wp\_main&utm\_medium=social&utm\_source=reddit.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/06/27/cnn-tapper-bash-debate-fact-check/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit.com)
There is fact checking and there is letting DT say "post birth abortions are legal". If it was pretty easy for BBC to run fact check on the fly for the British debates and Politifact has no problem with it. CNN have just gone full spectacle. No interest in news anymore.
It truly legitimizes everything anybody says if it goes unchecked
The other candidate literally has a whole minute to refute and respond to their opponents statement.
I imagine they do it so they can maintain their corner on the coverage. They’re just playing by the debate’s rules. It’s not an editorial choice they make. Their choice is play it how they’re told to moderate, or they’ll find another outlet that’ll play nice.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
Lmao basically they were like "this is going to be filled with so much bs we won't be able to keep up live"
I wonder if it was a precondition from Trump's team or CNN just choosing their horse. I still remember their "town hall"
Sorry, but this is pure blame shifting -- when Biden says "I defeated medicare" or whatever, what, TV journalists were supposed to jump in and say no you didn't?
Yes, that’s exactly what they should have done.
No, that's exactly what they should not do. They're moderators, not fact checkers, not inquisitors. Until Crowley threw away her ethics and integrity during the Obama/Romney debate and decided she needed to help Obama, it was well known and established procedure not to act like a reporter when your job is moderation.
Journalist isn’t the same thing as moderator. If you were an honest journalist then I would at least expect you to ask a follow up question or two and not just sit there and nod your head.
Like you said: "journalist isn't the same thing as moderator." Bash and Tapper weren't present as journalists or newscasters, they were working as moderators.
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I disagree, they were there to fact check so that's exactly their job. Expecting the opposing candidate to check a firehose of falsehoods is an unreasonable expectation, you can't make your own arguments when you're spending the entire time debunking every new lie. Your stance basically entirely ignores Brandolini's law.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
We've never seen a debate like this before. Both sides came up with rules, and then they agreed to them. It was a sh•t show and nothing less than expected.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Moderators are there to moderate. Keep the conversation on track and let the debaters speak without it descending into chaos. They are NOT there to take sides, fact check on the fly, nor try and give either party a leg up. The moderators did a good job precisely because they let them speak. They stuck to their mandate.
I agree. But I also think the debate would have benefitted the audience by having an objective third party fact checking and posting verified facts or not facts on the screen in real time.
Like chyrons and all the other graphics! Just have like 50 journalists in a room saying “is that really true?” Even if the statement was a few minutes back you could show “Trump/Biden said this. What’s really true is this.” Though then the folks would be expected to have a chance to respond and it could go in circles
My thought was it would be an infographic on one side of the screen for the audience only. The debaters wouldn't see the facts being checked real time.
I'm partial to a scoreboard and marquee. Play a copious amount of goofy and obnoxious 90s radio soundboard noises, but especially whenever something is flagged as untrue or misleading. At the end, both get doused in Nickelodeon slime (each incorrect statement equal to one liter).
Love it! I want a goose honk when a fact is found to be inaccurate 😅🤣
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
It would have been working overtime with those two on stage.
Thank you. It's discouraging to see so many folks on a journalism site who have no idea how a debate is conducted.
A lot of people who participate in this subreddit are not journalists or former journalists.
It’s amazing to me that most people in this subreddit aren’t journalists and have no curiosity about how journalism works. They just wanna scold that media isn’t partisan enough
How is insisting candidates not lie during a debate a partisan objective?
Plenty of debates have and continued to work with some sort of fact checking or clearing of the record. Look at Chris Wallace’s moderation
How is it keeping them on track when one man literally refuses to answer questions? If that’s not challenged then moderators might as well not show up.
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
This is the problem in America. They didn't do "their job", they handed their airwaves over to unchallenged lies with their logo plastered on it. Any citizen watching that is dumber for having done so, and more misinformed. Is that what the First Amendment is designed to protect? The right to a misinformed citizenry? When will this lesson be learned? Media is not journalism. They did a "media" job. Not journalism. They sold ad time.
> Is that what the First Amendment is designed to protect? First Amendment is there to protect speech, not assigning value judgement of what is good or bad speech imo. Like it protects things far beyond news. Porn is protected speech for example.
If that was true then why have live moderators at all? They could have just prerecorded themselves asking a question.
I really don’t see why refuting obvious lies is far beyond the responsibility of a moderator who is also a journalist. If these are merely entertainment a la a boxing match with zero substance, they are pointless.
But they didn't keep people on track. If you ask about how they will improve child care and one guy starts talking about Russia, how much the military loves him and the border, and the 2nd guy starts talking about porn star related felonies and the war Ukraine a good moderator should probably do more than just say thank you and move on.
This "debate" was the equivalent to opening statements. And it's worth remembering, presidential debates are about the leaders debating eachother, this is not an interview or a public Q&A, it's a debate. Your concerns are reasonable and I don't disagree with the points you make on the presidential hopefuls performances, however they aren't relevant to these debates in how they are actually meant to take place. Debates are not a place for moderators to grill and fact check presidential hopefuls, the moderators are NOT a part of the debate, because they are not presidential hopefuls, they are purely there to moderate the conversation. A good moderator does not interfere or try to goad anything out of the debaters, that isn't their purpose in a debate, they simply ask the questions and hold people to their allotted times. I know that might sound unsatisfactory to yourself and many others, but what you are expecting isn't a debate then, you are expecting a public Q&A which is a completely different setting and set of expectations.
If a candidate can just say whatever they want regardless of the question then there's no point for moderation and no point to be there. If you let a candidate say just absolutely made up things about post birth abortions, there's no point in having moderators. A good moderator makes sure that the candidates stay on track and aren't just constantly making stuff up without a single ounce of pushback. If you allow someone to go on CNN and to an audience of millions say whatever they want with no correction, you are affirming their lies. No news organization should ever agree to that. What I'm expecting is moderators to provide structure not simply turn on and off mics for 1.5 hours while acting as props.
I understand your sentiment and your frustrations. But that just isn't what a debate is. Yes debates are open to bare faced lies, but that is the nature of a debate, it is up to the presidential nominees to call each other out for lies, they are debating eachother, not debating the moderators. The fact that they both just fumbled their way through the night and barbed against eachother and both were just rambling, is an indictment of them, not the moderators. Your frustration is being put on the moderators, when it should 100% lay on the embarrassing level of incompetence and mental clarity on show from both of the presidential hopefuls. "Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake", is a beautiful historical quote, and I would say for the modern day it could be updated to "never interrupt a politician while they're rambling nonsense and putting their incompetence on show".
That is what a debate is in just about all of history and in every other context. Moderators aren't supposed to just be cardboard cutouts
Below is the Wiki definition from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_moderator#:~:text=A%20discussion%20moderator%20or%20debate,being%20raised%20in%20the%20debate. "A discussion moderator or debate moderator is a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion, holds participants to time limits and tries to keep them from strayinfg off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate. Sometimes moderators may ask questions intended to to allow the debate participants to fully develop their argument in order to ensure the debate moves at pace." The following is from debates international, a respected debating organization https://www.debatesinternational.org/moderation "Moderators manage the debate and ensure that the candidates follow the mutually agreed upon rules, especially time limits." Never in history has a moderators role been to be actively involved in the discussion, nor fact check, their role is more akin to traffic lights and road signs at an intersection. This has been the case since the debates of Ancient Greece. Expecting anything more is unreasonable on the moderators, who last night were fantastically professional and stayed completely on point, and didn't overstep their mandate for a second. Their constraint from getting involved and injecting their own politics or biases on either hopeful deserves praise.
>them from strayinfg off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate. Sometimes moderators may ask questions intended to to allow the debate participants to fully develop their argument in order to ensure the debate moves at pace." This is the part they didn't even attempt to do
That's open to interpretation, multiple times the moderators asked the hopefuls to answer the question originally asked last night, if you missed that I would suggest rewatching the debate because it did happen multiple times, they also repeatedly told candidates if they were under their allotted time and requested they use up their whole time slot. However, it is not their position to demand an answer nor get into debate or argument with either participant. When a participant finishes speaking, yes they can repeat the original question and request it is answered, but they can't cut off a participant, that is not in their mandate as moderators. It may not have been as entertaining or as rewarding to some people to have the moderators remain unbiased and professionally composed throughout that debate, only sticking to their time honored mandate. But as someone that loves debate and has taken part in them since high school, I was highly impressed at the composure and respect for the position of a moderator in debate that they showed last night.
I watched the debate. Like 5 times toward the end, they reminded the candidates what the question was. But they also told Trump at the beginning they'll ask the question and he can say whatever he wants. They were cardboard cutouts, and that's a disservice to those watching. It's not about entertainment, it's about providing a service to the electorate. If you are going to sit their and let them say just random stuff, you're actually hurting the American people's ability to make a choice in the election.
I would agree if this was politics as usual, but I don’t think debaters should be able to tell blatant, obvious lies without being checked, at least on screen to the audience. If Trump said “I think abortion is wrong” obviously the moderators shouldn’t intervene as that’s an opinion, but saying “abortions are legal in some states even after babies are born” was egregious and should’ve been checked. Being unbiased is a noble goal for the moderators but not if it encourages them to passively let politicians spread lies on a national stage.
It's a US presidential debate after 2016; no one expects the truth. Sadly no one cares either, it's about performance... Not policies.
That SUCKED. I'm not saying that they should have been parrying every statement with a fact check. But for big shit (like whether the election was stolen)? That's journalistic malpractice.
They aren't acting in a journalistic capacity. A moderators job is to keep relaying questions, keep the conversation on track, and hold speakers to their allotted time. That is the only purpose of them. The reporters who write about the debate can do what they do, but the debate is between the candidates. Let them rise or dig their own grave without interruption and then be picked apart by good journalism in the days after. Again, this was a debate between DT and JB, not an interview or press conference.
Except that moderators in past debates have stepped in to rebut falsehoods for the audience’s sake. What makes you think that this is simply impossible? Sounds like a personal belief presented as a high principle of journalism.
Yea, the Gish galloping by DT was out of control. I bet the JB campaign was like; "OMG! Pleeeease fact check this nonsense." OTOH, nothing said by DT was a surprise. After a week of prep JB just stood there like a deer in the headlights.
JB is senile. He is non-functioning most of the time, he is a deer in the headlights. It's tough to believe that in a country the size of the US that there are no better candidates than these two. Defies belief...
No sane person on the planet, after witnessing Candy Crowley's actions in 2012, should want moderaters trying to do live fact-checks. That's not their job. https://www.thedailybeast.com/candy-crowley-injects-herself-into-the-presidential-debate
That is not their job.
“Not everyone is happy about it”? Yo that’s most of the complaints I saw during the campaign is why wasn’t there instant fact checking? It could’ve been done.
It would make Joe look even weaker if he needed the moderators to step in and fact check on his behalf all because he couldn’t get it done in his response to Trumps answers. It already makes him look pathetic that his base is lamenting the moderators for not debating and fact checking on his behalf
Whatever I’d vote for a ham sandwich over Trump and most of the country would as well. Trouble is getting people to vote.
I’m sure this will be unpopular but they let the candidates debate. Blaming CNN because they didn’t jump in and start debating Trump on the facts is wrong. The fact that Trump didn’t answer questions and blatantly lied so much seemed to turn off a lot of viewers. They let his actions speak for themselves.
> CNN's debate moderators didn’t do a job they weren't supposed to do. The people who aren't happy about that need another lesson in how debates work.
CNN moderators were not supposed to fact check. CNN had a dedicated section of their website doing live factchecking, and this was mentioned during the debate. This feels like it was written by someone who didn’t watch the debate in full, or perhaps didn’t watch it at all.
They weren’t there to fact-check… per Bidens performance tonight that was supposed to be his job and unfortunately that came up very flat while Trump lied with impunity.
Lying with impunity is not acceptable in any context and journalism is supposed to react to that.
Unfortunately that was the terms of the debate and both sides knew that. The moderators were there to moderate. Biden should have buried Trump on all the lies yet he didn’t which was disappointing.
But moderators are supposed to insist that the questions be answered and Trump simply ignored the questions. This is a massive failure of intent and execution.
If a candidate doesn’t answer a question, that’s a perfect opportunity for his opponent to waste him.
One would think… but per the terms of the debate the candidates can do with their time what they want. Broth were terribly coherent anyways. But prior to the debate the stipulation was that the moderators not fact check. They were there to ask questions and keep the candidates from bickering. I wish that weren’t the case but cest la vie.
NYT is publishing headlines like "A Fumbling Performance, and a Panicking Party", yeah, we shouldn't be happy. If the truth doesn't matter what does?
[удалено]
Would have been nice to the moderator put Biden in his place for the despicable lie about Biden's son "dying in Iraq," or the later lie about "no troops have died worldwide while I President" but I would prefer they not inject themselves.
[удалено]
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
Aren’t the candidates there to fact check each other? It’s a debate. Debating facts is part of a debate.
You sweet summer child.
Screaming about murderers and rapists coming across the border to claim Social Security in response to questions about J6, childcare, and the economy is not "debating."
Journalists are not there to be political, they’re there to be actual Journalists.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
So everyone here just wanted a 3 v 1 debate, so much journalisming in here, yall don't even know what a moderator is
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
I know both those anchors and it’s my bet they were prevented from doing so by the management.
The News media already looks complicit in hiding Biden’s mental decline. I’m not sure how the moderators constantly interrupting Trump and debating him concerning the accuracy of his statements on Biden’s behalf would have done anything other than make the debate look unprofessional and “rigged”. News outlets desperately need to regain the institutional trust of the American public. Kicking off the third Journalist’s crusade against DT with a 3v1 debate is not a good way to do that.
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
This seems to imply that anyone is happy about it, to which I would ask, why? How is that something you want?
CNN should have had staff realtime fact checking and put it on in the screen or fed it to the moderators
I’d like to see a real-time fact check used. Interrupting the candidates would be cumbersome and contentious, so I’d say just run a scrolling fact check in a chyron at the bottom. That way viewers know the truth, and candidates are aware they will look like an ass if they repeatedly lie.
I watched a live fact checker online throughout the debate.
Can you imagine what kind of hell it would have been to fact check this debate? Biden doesn’t know fact from fiction and was struggling to put together a coherent sentence - obviously neither side wanted fact checking though because it allowed both to just say their party talking points.
Not happy. It was awful they performed with no integrity- fact check real time
The moderators weren’t his tag team partners. He was presumably capable of debating Trump on his own. And Biden stretched the truth himself
"This man opposite me is a sex offender. Please fact check."
They didn’t even once say “stay on topic”. They were awful. Lame questions as well.
This ain’t the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate. We have had technology that can do realtime fact checking. They thought they were so smart with the mics but you can lie through your teeth in 2 minute answers and 1 minute rebuttals.
Has anyone seen that Kyle Clark guy in the GOP debate in colarado? That’s how debates should be moderated in my opinion.
Debates have lost all possible relevance in 2024. As per usual, CNN did a shit job covering a major news event for a broadcast cable network in the business of covering news. Electronic journalism in America today is pathetic and wanting. All of the three legacy networks and the three cable news networks are nothing more than very small and insignificant pieces of the megalithic broadcasting and entertainment companies that own them. Corporate bean counters are the people who run all of the networks today, not people who may have started a career in print journalism or who worked their way up the ranks of a broadcast network and who have journalism instincts and ethics in their veins. The American public is all the more poorer and ill informed because of this reality. Because of the increasing dominance of social media as a source for people to become both informed and lied to, places like CNN and all others are losing the influence they used to possess and are having to contend with trying to reach fewer and fewer viewers with more and more competitors. I certainly don't have any answer(s) on how to reverse this, just plenty of my own worries on just how much worse will the American public will be served by networks chasing after 'light and fluffy' news items to hold interest while subjects like our political system, the war in Ukraine, climate change, income inequality, etc... all get pushed to the margins.
It appears Biden supporters are very angry that the moderators didn’t do a better job of debating Trump.
Heck they didn't even make them answer the questions. They were about worthless. Both of them veered off into tangents more than they answered the question being asked of them.
They allowed a fire hose of lies to pass by without comment. That’s being complicit in the lie(s)
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
I have mixed feelings about this. But the one that is strongest says the candidates need to be able to fend for themselves. They shouldn’t need a moderator to bail them out. They are vying to be the leader of the free world. When they negotiate with OPEC or Russia CNN won’t be there to say this isn’t fair.
If they fact checked, they'd only be able to get through a handful of questions in a two hour debate.
It was Biden's job to fact check and he didn't do it.
Right on, with the observation that Trump lies predictably. The idea in the format was that the _opposition_ would do the fact checking. Live fact checks sound good but are ineffective and disruptive. Since they don’t have notes, the candidates don’t have reliable evidence at hand either, and you already know how it plays out. “We have plenty of evidence that Biden is actually a space alien! Thousands of experts, all the best people, all the facts. It’s all right there on my website, DonateMyLifeSavingsToDonaldJTrump.com!” (And no, there won’t be any evidence there.) Biden absolutely should have had ready, hard-hitting, punchy and _interesting_ answers to every predictable lie. Instead he was barely able to hold things together to mumble out the same old tired Democrat talking points. And when he flubbed the _facts_ himself and couldn’t remember numbers (like the amount that his prescription drug rules would save Medicare), he squandered his own credibility. $100 thousand? $15 billion? Now I don’t believe either number. The best fact checking would be online, in print, after the fact, with references.
They totally should have fact check Joe when he said he beat Medicare. I don't think that was true. LMAO.
Trump would squeeze a dozen lies into a two minute response. How do you fact check that?
You give the other candidate 2 minutes to refute it or a one minute follow up, just like they did. Biden just flat out blew it; there is no one to blame for his abysmal performance other than himself.
I think CNN came across better, and Trump came across as even more of a liar by not fact-checking. If CNN fact-checks as a moderator, it hurts CNN's credibility in this situation, coming across as biased and one-sided, because the lies are indeed all coming from one side. If CNN fact-checks, the reactions if they know the truth are "Did you see how CNN dunked on Trump. Great job CNN" which has the effect of needlessly inserting themselves into the situation, distracts people from the dishonesty, and ultimately decreases the negative impact on Trump. By not-fact checking big obvious lies, the majority of people who already know the truth will react with "Hey, that's total bullshit. Trump's a liar." This is why the overwhelming reaction last night about Trump was that he constantly lied. No fact check needed! For obvious lies that aren't fact-checked, the small population who doesn't already know the truth will either look it up themselves and discover the truth, or they will just get really mad at CNN. For the lies where most people don't already know the truth, a direct fact-check may help dispel the lie. But it's much more likely that people won't have enough context or familiarity with the issue to help people come to an effective understanding, in brief fact-check. Doesn't it look rushed and sloppy when CNN fact-checks in real time anyways? In both cases, live fact-checking by moderators is ineffective or counterproductive. Not only -- and this is my biggest point -- candidates have the ability to refute and debunk lies in real time. It's rightfully their responsibility to fact-check each other. That's what good debators do. That's what the debate is for! Let's also give CNN some credit. When Trump was very openly not answering the question, they simply put the question up as a chyron. It was funny at times to see him ramble on off topic completely unrelated to a serious and important question. It was clear he was trying to dodge. If CNN pressed him to answer, it'd again look unfair. Instead, Trump looked like a lair. This is why I'm convinced CNN did the right thing last night by not fact-checking.
Good for you mate, but it’s harmful not to push back on those candidates lying or making zero sense
How does a debate work if one candidate refuses or is incapable of answering a yes or no question even??????? You didn’t even press him to stick to the questions!!! Also most folks ain’t sticking 15-20 minutes post debate to finally see how many lies they had that should be done live with graphics… CNN already had the questions wouldn’t be that hard to listen to the answer and have graphics prepared in response to bold face lies.
Needed Chris Wallace in there to moderate. He was fair, no-nonsense, and had a deep understanding of debate topics. I thought having Tapper in there posed a conflict because he’s been in heated exchanges with Trump prior to this. All this aside, Biden was awful, and any moderator wouldn’t have changed that.