I don’t understand why news organizations sponsor debates or use journalists to “moderate” them if they aren’t going to act like journalists. Any “performer” can read a predetermined question and turn to the second debater and say “the next question goes to … .” Might as well have a game show host moderate the debate instead of turning experienced broadcast journalists imto traffic cops. It’s insulting to them and the profession.
Excellent point, Cliff. I personally could not imagine sitting there and letting lie after lie go by without trying to set the record straight. The ABC moderators were prepared for what might come out of Trump’s mouth, made a quick low-key correction and moved on without being overly dramatic about it. Having said that, it’s challenging to fact-check in real time while live on air. Journalists are used to not opening their mouths until they’re absolutely certain, and that takes time to fact-check themselves before speaking or writing.
I guess I will need to fact check in my own brain - I will not rely on it, just checking with my built-in prejudice showing through - because all of this is passing me by and these tech advances are losing a generation of viewers for full participation. It is just sad that we are now into fact-checking to get an honest opinion of the candidates, OR people don't care enough to know the honest facts. Too bad off-screen fact-checkers can't put a graphic of the errors or real facts on the screen while the conversation (not a real debate) continues. But, I will be watching, even though my mind has been made up for a long time.
The best argument in favor of CBS’s on-screen fact-checking during pre-debate analysis is that it enhances viewer understanding and accountability. By providing real-time corrections or context to misleading claims, CBS ensures (at least tries to ensure) that misinformation is promptly addressed, crucial during high-stakes political events like the Walz-Vance debate. This practice helps viewers differentiate facts from spin and promotes informed decision-making. If this model of fact checking has even partial success, it also encourages current and future candidates to adhere to higher standards of accuracy, ultimately contributing to a more informed electorate.
If successful, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NewsNation, etc. will begin to use a similar fact checker during candidate interviews and press conferences.
I agree with Dave that moderators should always maintain the option to do some fact checking. What if one the candidates accuses CBS of being biased-if so, will the two moderators remain silent?
CBS "moderator" Margaret Brennan is also a director at the liberal-fascist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which has controlled the US govt and media since WW2. Most of the "Biden team" are CFR members, including Blinken, Yellen, Austin, Mayorkas, Burns, Zients, and dozens more.
I don’t understand why news organizations sponsor debates or use journalists to “moderate” them if they aren’t going to act like journalists. Any “performer” can read a predetermined question and turn to the second debater and say “the next question goes to … .” Might as well have a game show host moderate the debate instead of turning experienced broadcast journalists imto traffic cops. It’s insulting to them and the profession.
Excellent point, Cliff. I personally could not imagine sitting there and letting lie after lie go by without trying to set the record straight. The ABC moderators were prepared for what might come out of Trump’s mouth, made a quick low-key correction and moved on without being overly dramatic about it. Having said that, it’s challenging to fact-check in real time while live on air. Journalists are used to not opening their mouths until they’re absolutely certain, and that takes time to fact-check themselves before speaking or writing.
I guess I will need to fact check in my own brain - I will not rely on it, just checking with my built-in prejudice showing through - because all of this is passing me by and these tech advances are losing a generation of viewers for full participation. It is just sad that we are now into fact-checking to get an honest opinion of the candidates, OR people don't care enough to know the honest facts. Too bad off-screen fact-checkers can't put a graphic of the errors or real facts on the screen while the conversation (not a real debate) continues. But, I will be watching, even though my mind has been made up for a long time.
Thanks, Dave! This is good to know in advance! Thanks for the shout-out!
The best argument in favor of CBS’s on-screen fact-checking during pre-debate analysis is that it enhances viewer understanding and accountability. By providing real-time corrections or context to misleading claims, CBS ensures (at least tries to ensure) that misinformation is promptly addressed, crucial during high-stakes political events like the Walz-Vance debate. This practice helps viewers differentiate facts from spin and promotes informed decision-making. If this model of fact checking has even partial success, it also encourages current and future candidates to adhere to higher standards of accuracy, ultimately contributing to a more informed electorate.
If successful, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NewsNation, etc. will begin to use a similar fact checker during candidate interviews and press conferences.
I agree with Dave that moderators should always maintain the option to do some fact checking. What if one the candidates accuses CBS of being biased-if so, will the two moderators remain silent?
CBS "moderator" Margaret Brennan is also a director at the liberal-fascist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which has controlled the US govt and media since WW2. Most of the "Biden team" are CFR members, including Blinken, Yellen, Austin, Mayorkas, Burns, Zients, and dozens more.
So much for "unbiased" journalism. Here's a recent sample: cfr.org/event/tackling-evolving-threat-landscape-homeland-security-2023
As to CFR control of the media, see charts: swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/