Is it the job of the debate moderator to fact check?

[fantome profane]

How do debate monitors fact check?

They open their mouths and say the words "that is not true" or something to that effect.

 

[columbus]

When a candidate can get away with lying without being challenged, the problem is often that the format isn't conducive to rebutting the other speakers' points.

Pretty much this.

It is part of the debate to challenge ones opponent. That gives the audience a sense of how a candidate responds to differing views.

A big part of the problem is distinguishing lies from dramatically different views. It is not always easy. And it's nearly always very subjective.
Tom

 

[jonathan180iq]

The person to call out a lie in a debate is the opponent.

Too often, political "debates" end up being a series of standalone speeches or responses to questions with no rebuttal from the other side. When a candidate can get away with lying without being challenged, the problem is often that the format isn't conducive to rebutting the other speakers' points.

I'll agree with that too, but that culture exists only because it's allowed to. As a speaker, I'm not going to openly question the false statements of my opponent if I know that they can do the same for me. In that case, it's the moderators job to keep them both on point AND honest.

The preparation by the candidates for these debates is altered, for example, when they know that they won't truly be pressed on an issue by either their opponent or the moderator. There's literally no one on the stage willing, able, or ready to pounce. That's a problem.

I think it would make for much healthier debate (and better television) if a period of time was open to moderator response following any long and rambling claim by a speaker. A purposefully dedicated team would be behind the scenes fact-checking almost every major point and passing that information along to the moderator. At the end of the speaker's diatribe, they would be questioned on the source of the data supporting their claim, asked how and why they believed what they believed about the source, and/or simply called out for fabricating a narrative.

The two people who will be on the debate stage are the faces of two gigantic political machines. They either have the ability to adequately represent their party's by and sensibly and resonably arguing for their stances on various issues, or they don't. If they do not, and if the entire house of cards is built on social psychological manipulation and purposefully constructed narratives, then it needs to be brought down. (In retrospect, that last lines reads a bid anarchist and that's not what I intended. But I'm leaving it.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

They open their mouths and say the words "that is not true" or something to that effect.

So it becomes a slippery slope of honesty and lying. I suppose they Google it like most everyone else, leaving the spectators wondering about the integrity of the monitor much less the candidates.

 

[fantome profane]

So it becomes a slippery slope of honesty and lying. I suppose they Google it like most everyone else, leaving the spectators wondering about the integrity of the monitor much less the candidates.

But the point is that they should (and actually do) select moderators with considerable knowledge of the issues. Why do they do that if the moderators are not to use that knowledge?

 

[columbus]

But the point is that they should (and actually do) select moderators with considerable knowledge of the issues. Why do they do that if the moderators are not to use that knowledge?

I don't watch many of these things.
But I often find myself wishing the mods were better at enforcing time limits and preventing interruptions. I don't much care about their opinions or beliefs about "facts".
Tom

 

[Underhill]

As funny as it could potentially be (big red buzzer sound LIE!) ultimately it is the responsibility of the individual to sort out and separate the wheat from the chaff and figure out for themselves what is most likely true and vote accordingly.

Yeah, because that happens...

 

[Underhill]

How do debate monitors fact check?

It would be very easy to arrange as I pointed out on the first page. Simply have a team behind the scenes who's job it is to fact check. When they find something blatantly wrong the moderator could simply say, "actually our fact checkers say..."

The problem is that the populace is so accustomed to massive media bias that the conclusions they would draw would not be that the candidate lied but that the moderator is biased.

 

[columbus]

When they find something blatantly wrong the moderator could simply say, "actually our fact checkers say..."

I would rather find out if their opponent is sufficiently informed and assertive enough to do that.
I am not voting for a moderator.
Tom

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't watch many of these things.
But I often find myself wishing the mods were better at enforcing time limits and preventing interruptions. I don't much care about their opinions or beliefs about "facts".
Tom

That's my view. It maintains a role of neutrality and order. The last thing needed is to have moderators become embroiled in the exchanges as to what's true or not. Its not their job.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What is the function of an American debate moderator?
does he not simply act as a chairman, to whome the parties speak, as in speaking through the chair.
Apart from insuring the rules of the debate are adhered to and that speaking times are kept to. He should take no part in the debates.
It is the purpose of a debate to establish the truth. The verdict is given by those who listen and are persuaded one way or the other.
There are no arbiters of truth except the participators, that is the function of the debate.

 

[Underhill]

I would rather find out if their opponent is sufficiently informed and assertive enough to do that.
I am not voting for a moderator.
Tom

I would rather see moderators push the candidates to honest discussion rather than partisan bickering. It wouldn't need to happen often, but if the moderators made it clear they wouldn't put up with this garbage, the candidates would be forced to move away from rhetoric and towards substance.

 

[esmith]

the debates are not a "trial". it is not the job of the "moderator" to make a determination on the facts of the statements presented by the debaters, that is left up to those watching the debates to make their own judgment of the validity of a statement.
in today's 24 hour media circus and almost instant internet reviews if a candidate gets the facts wrong it will be brought out. if I'm watching a debate with limited time for the debate I would prefer to hear more substance vice the bickering it would produce if "fact checking" was brought into the picture.

 

[fantome profane]

the debates are not a "trial". it is not the job of the "moderator" to make a determination on the facts of the statements presented by the debaters, that is left up to those watching the debates to make their own judgment of the validity of a statement.
in today's 24 hour media circus and almost instant internet reviews if a candidate gets the facts wrong it will be brought out. if I'm watching a debate with limited time for the debate I would prefer to hear more substance vice the bickering it would produce if "fact checking" was brought into the picture.

I think if fact checking is done excessively it could interfere with the debate in the way you are talking about. But I also think that if no fact checking is done then the debate devolves into a "yes it is" "no it isn't" kind of argument.

And as for the 24 hour media, I am worried that after the debate too many people are going to retreat back into their own media bubble, watch only the news they like. And so they will hear that the candidate they opposed lied, but will not hear about how their favourite candidate also lied. This is why I think the moderator must call them on their lies right there in real time.

 

[esmith]

I think if fact checking is done excessively it could interfere with the debate in the way you are talking about. But I also think that if no fact checking is done then the debate devolves into a "yes it is" "no it isn't" kind of argument.

And that would be the job of the moderator....to move the debate on.

And as for the 24 hour media, I am worried that after the debate too many people are going to retreat back into their own media bubble, watch only the news they like. And so they will hear that the candidate they opposed lied, but will not hear about how their favourite candidate also lied. This is why I think the moderator must call them on their lies right there in real time.

That is going to happen whether "fact checking" goes on or not.
Only those that have not came to a conclusion over a candidate will be interested in "facts". And I really don't believe that the debates will have that much influence over the undecided.
The debates are only a media circus for media to make money. Yes there may be a couple of ideas put forth that might make a difference but there just isn't enough time to get to the meat of a subject in a debate.
Sure you will have someone declared a "winner" and someone declared a "loser". Why don't they just do the same that many kids sports teams get......a participation award.

 

[YmirGF]

I am not suggesting that the moderator should be correcting every tiny detail. We don't want this to devolve into a debate between the candidate and the moderator. But the moderator should be free to correct major blatant falsehoods.

It seems strange to me that we would go to such effort to select moderators who are qualified and acceptable to both sides, and then not let them do what they are qualified to do. Why select moderators who have knowledge, judgement, and can be unbiased if their job does not require these skills? Why not just have a guy who can read a timer?

It sounds like a good idea and it could be quite hilarious, but I think of all the times friends and family have been seething over something that Hillary or even Obama has said and I patiently tell them that, "But they are not lying. They are simply using statistics that support their narrative while blithely ignoring other statistics that do not support their narrative." Then, of course, along came Donald Trump and well... the rest is history... Seriously, I don't think the moderators could fact check every utterance he came out with without seeming to come out strongly biased against him. They are, after all, supposed to be impartial and mere referees or tillers keeping the conversation on course.

 

[Willamena]

The role of the moderator is to guide the debate towards the strict confines of the accepted rules for debate. Fact checking would just slow the debate down.

 

[Underhill]

the debates are not a "trial". it is not the job of the "moderator" to make a determination on the facts of the statements presented by the debaters, that is left up to those watching the debates to make their own judgment of the validity of a statement.
in today's 24 hour media circus and almost instant internet reviews if a candidate gets the facts wrong it will be brought out. if I'm watching a debate with limited time for the debate I would prefer to hear more substance vice the bickering it would produce if "fact checking" was brought into the picture.

I don't think it would mean any bickering if handled right. Tell the candidates before the debate that you were going to do it with the input from a bipartisan panel. I would be surprised if the moderator ever had to say anything. The garbage to substance rate might just increase as a result.