Fact Checking

I will not be voting for either Clinton or Trump. That said, I would really favor a live fact checking debate rather than what Chris Wallace seems to think is a journalists responsibility...

When asked whether he would call out either candidate on untruths told...

“That’s not my job,” Wallace concluded. “I do not believe it is my job to be a truth squad. It’s up to the other person to catch them on that. I certainly am going to try to maintain some reasonable semblance of equal time. If one of them is filibustering, I’m going to try to break in respectfully and give the other person a chance to talk. But I want it to be about them — I want it to be as much of a debate, people often talk that it’s simultaneous news conferences.”

Well, it IS your job. Looks like we're going to get a complacent media letting both of them lie through their teeth, and say nothing while both of them do it. Sickening.

 

Very surprised nobody seems to think this is a huge issue with our media...

 

Wrong. Wallace is 100% correct, it is not his job to inject his own "fact checking" into a presidential debate. It is his job to read the questions, follow them up, and keep things as orderly as possible. "Fact checking" is the latest Complex media canard used to offer some air of credibility to their out of context, cherry-picked, slanted partisanship... and people are waking up to that more and more daily.

Not at all surprised you don't know this though.

 

A journalist is NOT a mouthpiece for politicians. They are supposed to hold them ACCOUNTABLE for their lies. It is their job to ask questions to get to the truth, not to let candidates spout lies and misinformation. Why the hell would we need a moderator at all then, why not just give pres conferences? Wallace is a hack, and so is anyone who doesn't stand up for what is true, and what is false. Sounds like you don't want journalists, you want potted plants.

 

What you're asking for can't be done practically speaking. Why would you think the moderator would necessarily know off the top of his head if something is a "fact" or not? Based on the current gang of journalistic "fact checks" like Politifact and the Post's Glen Kessler, I've no confidence that journalists are capable of fact checking fairly and accurately. They can't even discern when something is factual or opinion. Since they've turned fact checking into a joke in print form, when they actually have time to do real research, I can't help but think off the top of your head fact checking will be a disaster.

It's a debate and it's up to the other candidate to counter any non facts. I can't see how a moderator could do that.

 

Wallace is a true believer in the "know nothing" school of debate moderation, apparently.

A mindless question spewer certainly doesn't deserve the big bucks. Why not have the nominees pick queries out of a basket of fortune cookies?

Nor is it in the interests of the American electorate to have candidates constantly being diverted from explicating their own priorities, policy positions and agendas, and allocating their allotted time to correcting the lunatic ravings and self-serving lies of the other.

If Wallace isn't up to the task, there are plenty who are.

 

It can certainly be done. I'm not saying every journalist should know every single lie, but Wallace was asked if he was confronted with a candidate telling a lie he knew about, and said he would NOT correct them. He should be fired for that! We need journalists to hold candidates accountable to reality.

 

Who's facts? As you may have noticed, 'facts' are not always something well defined and often just opinion, especially in politics. Chris Wallace is right, that is, unless you can't think for yourself.

 

Trump says "The Sun Rises in the West", and Wallace nods like a lemming?

Sounds like a great approach to debate moderation.

 

Chris Wallace is not needed if his attitude is "let the candidates fight it out". Our media sucks because they try and play it down the middle. There is correct, and incorrect. When Trump says we're over run with terrorist, that is a lie. We have less terror attacks than people drowning in their swimming pools. When Hillary says she never sent classified materials, that is a lie, we have evidence to the contrary.

THAT is what a moderator is supposed to be doing.

 

I really am sorry that you wouldn't know if it were true or not unless Wallace told you, but then, some people do need to be told how to think.

 

Both Trump and Clinton are serial liars, if a moderator won't call them out then there is no point to the debates.

- - - Updated - - -

Moderators are SUPPOSED to decipher the truth in a debate and not let candidates get away with lying to people, who you know, have jobs and may not pay attention like it's their...job.

 

The media is supposed to play it down the middle but in fact meddle with their own bias so much people think it is what is normal. A moderator presides over a discussion to keep it on track, not tell the debaters what the moderator 'thinks' is right. When the moderator interjects their 'facts' they are now in the debate not moderating a debate. When the moderator interjects their 'facts' and they are wrong, they are providing an even bigger disservice to the public.

I am surprised how many people here think that the public needs to be told what to think and I would bet that most that do are on the left.

 

Perhaps I am just being cynical, but I think most people care little about objective facts. I think what many value more is finding evidence that backs their preconceived views aka confirmation bias. From my perspective both of the top presidential candidates are a prime example of this.

 

Wallace's role, in this case, is not one of a journalist. It is one of a debate moderator. His job is to present fair questions, and allow the candidates fair time to respond, and to intervene to keep the field level. It is the OTHER journalists job to call them out after the fact.

 

Moderators do not allow candidates to LIE. If you were moderating, and a candidate told something that was clearly a lie, you would not feel the duty to stop them from lying on your stage? If not you're not doing your job. If the journalist is wrong that's also a problem. We have let media become opinion in this country.

It's even more important to fact check in a Presidential debate, because if you don't, candidates get away with lying to citizens. There is supposed to be a barrier there.

- - - Updated - - -

Hahaha, no it's the moderators job to keep them honest. Especially with these two, they are the worst liars we've had running for President in decades.

 

Who's facts are you going to rely on? Facts, especially in politics, are not always objective. If the moderators facts are wrong then what?

The barrier is supposed to be your intellect. After all, the people decide, not the moderators.

 

We know how the media's instant fact checking works Candy Crowley.

 

It is not at all surprising that Trump supporters are vehemently opposed to having Trump's bloviating canards fact checked by the media.

 

Fact checking is non partisan and meets the definition of "playing it down the middle" since it applies to both candidates.

 

Again, who's facts? If they start fact checking, the fact checkers will start fact checking them. A moderator fact checking is a minefield.

 

People decide yes, but the media pays its "moderators" a hefty salary for what? NOT calling them liars when they willfully lie to us? Their job is to vet and ask these candidates tough questions and to call them out on that stage if and when they lie. Otherwise it's just "state television".

- - - Updated - - -

She was doing her job and did it correctly. More so-called journalists should follow her lead.

- - - Updated - - -

Then don't waste our time with debates, they are just paid infomercials with no live fact checking.

 

Facts are nonpartisan. Trump has told a great many lies and needs to be held accountable for his lies just as those on the right demand that Hillary be held accountable.

That is the job of the moderator to hold both candidates to the facts and not allow them to get away with lying to We the People.

Obviously the FuaxNoise moderator is unqualified by his own admission. Perhaps Megan Kelly can do what he can't.

 

That's a dumb comment. It is a debate between two candidates, not between the candidates and the moderator.

- - - Updated - - -

You seem to think 'facts' in politics are completely objective, they aren't.

 

No, she was taking sides, and she lied to bolster Barack Obama's lies. Moderators are supposed to be neutral.