Yes, debate moderators must fact check presidential candidates during debates - Poynter

Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s June presidential debate was one of the most consequential in modern presidential history, leading directly to Biden stepping away and Kamala Harris becoming Democratic nominee. But this debate had one striking feature that stood out: its striking lack of fact-checking. Where Biden often spoke incoherently or said things that didn’t make much sense or were difficult to follow, Donald Trump relied heavily on falsehoods about the economy, abortion, immigration and election fraud in order to advance his agenda. CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash decided not to fact-check either candidate’s answer and simply said thank you before moving onto another one, leaving candidates free to express whatever thoughts came into their heads. It was done deliberately as part of CNN’s policy of giving candidates their space. CNN successfully made this case that adopting a passive approach allows candidates to showcase themselves more. But this strategy was widely criticized as it leaves voting public uninformed of what’s taking place. As part of their early voting experience in a high-stakes race for president, voters often need help understanding political messaging if they’re just tuning in – without guidance from journalists, they might struggle to discern between what’s true and false without having some form of guidance available such as moderators of journalist-run forums. President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris of the Democratic party will square off Tuesday night in a debate hosted by ABC’s David Muir and Linsey Davis. While Trump and Harris supporters and detractors tend to dominate social media conversations, many less partisan Americans tune in seeking basic information before voting. Debate moderators who fail to challenge candidates on lies or spin are doing these voters an injustice. CNN suggested live fact-checking was too hard and would slow the debates down; others claimed fact checking is subjective or time consuming; I disagree with all these claims and will defend all those positions here. Prepared journalists can be effective and even artful at debunking debate lies. There are effective techniques available that don’t scream “Hey, I’m fact-checking you right now!” but are nevertheless extremely beneficial to voters seeking information. Here are five techniques debate moderators can utilize when holding candidates accountable with fact-checking. It is paramount that debate moderators conduct thorough research, understand their questions in-depth, and know enough to spot lies or present opposing arguments immediately in real time. Very few experts excel as effectively at questioning foreign policy as ABC’s Martha Raddatz, an esteemed international relations scholar and debate moderator for ABC. Her tough questioning on the foreign policy debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders garnered widespread acclaim; her challenging questioning on foreign affairs won widespread applause from viewers of that debate. Raddatz asked Clinton what responsibility rested with the Obama administration after its 2011 intervention in Libya failed. Clinton provided an extended answer that effectively said they did everything reasonably possible. Raddatz was ready to defend their positions: “On security issues, our efforts consisted merely in offering limited training efforts and buy-back programs – which leave me asking again: to what degree are you responsible for the chaos which followed those elections? “. Raddatz then hit back again by asking whether any mistakes had been made: Candidates in debates typically fact-check each other; good moderators facilitate and foster this dynamic. Biden faced severe criticism from his own party after failing to show up during June debate, however. But in 2020 he proved effective; particularly at Kristen Welker’s moderated final debate of 2020 cycle. Welker employed an approachable style when fact-checking candidates’ statements; her key strength lay in reaching out quickly to each for quick replies against opponents. Biden and Trump exchanged back-and-forth comments regarding pandemic, Russian election interference, the economy and Hunter Biden’s business ventures – without her interfering or interrupting in any way their fact checking of one another. Her direct manner and clear instructions that she intended to keep the candidates within time constraints encouraged a productive dialogue among candidates. At two points during that 2020 debate, Welker intervened by fact-checking Trump with short comments that didn’t require him to respond and instead served to clarify facts and correct inaccurate reports. After Trump stated that most people recover easily from COVID infection, particularly young people, as though contracting COVID were no big deal, Welker responded quickly: CDC data confirms young adults can contract COVID-19. He made sure his remarks were both concise and direct – giving no room for debate! Trump responded to immigration-related allegations of children being separated from parents at the border by noting: “These kids are being cared for very, very well; their facilities were so clean.” Welker quickly replied with, “But some have yet to reunited with their families” — an insightful remark which got right to the core issue at stake. These corrections stand out because Welker addressed issues of serious public health significance as well as humanitarian ones of widespread significance, rather than waste time with insignificant fact checks. Moderators shouldn’t waste their time conducting checks that don’t matter. Example of what not to do occurred when CNN reporter Candy Crowley attempted to fact-check Mitt Romeny during a 2012 debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romeny; many have debated for years over her decision on this point. At issue was a fact check covering an important subject but which focused on unimportant process details instead. Let’s consider this example again. Again focusing on Libya, Romney used an attack line against Obama: It took 14 days before he called Benghazi attack an act of terror.” However, Crowley informed Romney that in fact President Obama called it such. Crowley commented on this contradiction with: Obama quickly took advantage of this moment to interject: “Can you say it a little louder, Candy?” Crowley quickly clarified: “He did call it an act of terror… however it took about two weeks or so before there was talk about there possibly being a riot somewhere about this tape being leaked out there. “Romney was right: you did make that point.” For those not familiar, this tape featured an American-produced video mocking Islam which initially caused suspicions it may have led to spontaneous violence at Benghazi embassy; as evidence accumulated however it became apparent it had indeed been preplanned by terrorists. Crowley received immense scrutiny during this exchange over whether she was successful in her fact check of Obama, with much riding on how specific words he used at Rose Garden press conferences were parsed out (read more detail on these fact checks here and here). Unfortunately it all boils down to parsing which ones he actually said (more comprehensive fact checks can be found here and here). Obama seemed unclear on whether or not Benghazi should be considered an act of terror; rather, his remarks suggested a connection between violent acts in general and what had transpired at Benghazi; nonetheless this didn’t appear to be of great relevance in its impact on Benghazi itself. As much attention as President Barack Obama gave to what was said when, his policy response to Libya and how America might have saved lives or protected its foreign policy interests more efficiently were lost amid all the debates which tried to cover too many topics at once. As soon as a moderator begins a debate by declaring they intend to cover all the pertinent issues for voters, I heave a sigh of resignation – this signals to me that I may just sit through an unpleasant and even dull debate session. No debate can appeal to every voter equally; journalists make an error when they mistakenly assume more topics will make things better for voters. Most viewers tune in just to gain insight into who represents them: How well are their positions articulated; do they come off strong or weak when speaking up on behalf of these positions? What impression do they leave of themselves or of others? Facts certainly matter, but that should not be seen as the only criterion that counts: creating substantive and thoughtful debate is more essential than quickly covering topics as quickly as possible. In its OnPoynt report on news trends, The Poynter Institute noted that ethical journalism and high-quality coverage are effective ways of building trust and standing out in an oversaturated news marketplace. By making political debates more substantial through smart public interest fact checking tailored specifically for television formats, major national news organizations could truly distinguish themselves in an otherwise content-dense marketplace.