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

[fantome profane]

In the upcoming presidential debates do you want the moderators to check the debaters when they say something know to be false? Or should the moderator just ignore lies? Or is the job of the moderator only to be a time keeper? Isn't the reason we have journalists doing this job is that we want someone who has knowledge of the issues and the facts to be able to call them on their lies?

Should the moderator of the Presidential debates fact check in real time?

 

[Sunstone]

I'd love to see real time fact checking. The candidates cannot be relied upon to check themselves, and someone needs to do it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While it would be interesting to see, I don't think a moderator would be able to do it efficiently or fast enough on their own. But it would be great if candidates could be and were called out on their lies and fallacies.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Perhaps not the moderators themselves, but they should have some people at the ready to assist the moderators in doing so.

Also, if the answer is too obscure to be accurately fact checked, the moderators should ask for clarification.

 

[Jumi]

That would give a moderator more chances to biased. They would catch more lies by one debater than the other.

 

[Underhill]

While it would be interesting to see, I don't think a moderator would be able to do it efficiently or fast enough on their own. But it would be great if candidates could be and were called out on their lies and fallacies.

I would be easy enough to have a team on standby checking facts and if they lie, it can simply be sent to the moderator via his/her monitor or earpiece.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Moderators should be informed enough to know, and skilled enough to effectively note, when a candidate perpetuates a lie.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Moderators should be informed enough to know, and skilled enough to effectively note, when a candidate perpetuates a lie.

They should be, but we couldn't reasonably expect them to know enough about everything to not need to fact check.

 

[HonestJoe]

Should the moderator of the Presidential debates fact check in real time?

I’m not sure what the rules are for the moderators in the US debates but I don’t think they should be making definitive statements contradicting the candidates (e.g. “Funding is up by 10%” “No, it’s only up by 5%!”) but they should have scope to question statements and push for clarification to make it harder for candidates to talk their way out of the holes they dig themselves in to (e.g. “Funding is up by 10%” “Over what time period?”).

It does seem like a difficult balance to strike though and possibly putting even more on the shoulders of people already doing an almost impossible job.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They should be, but we couldn't reasonably expect them to know enough about everything to not need to fact check.

I'm not sure what that sentence means, but the reason I used the term 'perpetuates' is because candidates develop scripted responses to questions and too often repeat the same lie over and over again. There is no excuse for a debate moderator not to know and challenge such exhaustively repeated lies.

 

[fantome profane]

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?

 

[columbus]

I wouldn't really expect the moderator to do something as complex and subjective as "fact check" during the debate. Keeping the discussion moving and fair is a big enough job.
Having a team of 2 or 4 on the sidelines, half picked by one candidate and half by the other, might be good.
Tom

 

[Parchment]

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.

 

[jonathan180iq]

In the upcoming presidential debates do you want the moderators to check the debaters when they say something know to be false? Or should the moderator just ignore lies? Or is the job of the moderator only to be a time keeper? Isn't the reason we have journalists doing this job is that we want someone who has knowledge of the issues and the facts to be able to call them on their lies?

Should the moderator of the Presidential debates fact check in real time?

I wish moderators would press the candidates more, forcing them to defend their stances and positions in a manner more believable than just regurgitating prepared talking points. I realize that's not really the job of a "moderator", in the formal sense, but the reason that rhetoric gets to maintain the hold that is has in our popular discussions is because people don't get called on it when they should. It starts at the top.

A debate without actual moderation is pretty pointless

It's not hard to poke holes in balsa wood. Any moderator worth their two cents should be able to take claims to task on the spot.

For all the complaining that we do here at Religious Forums about logical consistency, intellectual honesty, and supported claims, we are vastly superior to things like these debates - and they're nationally syndicated!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Sure; that'll work.

 

[Parchment]

Sure; that'll work.

It could

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wish moderators would press the candidates more, forcing them to defend their stances and positions in a manner more believable than just regurgitating prepared talking points. I realize that's not really the job of a "moderator", in the formal sense, but the reason that rhetoric gets to maintain the hold that is has in our popular discussions is because people don't get called on it when they should. It starts at the top.

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.

 

[Parchment]

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.

Which is exactly why I don't waste much time watching debates (or television in general for that matter), as to the lying without being challenged sometimes it is a good tactic to let someone dig their own holes as letting them get away with it generally emboldens them to create even bigger lies.

 

[Acim]

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

This.

Otherwise, moderators set themselves up as being part of the debate, becoming a visible opponent.

I'd love to test run this for OP or anyone who thinks it would work out swimmingly for such a moderator. In essence, who will determine (ultimately) what the actual truth is? The moderator? What if they are wrong, and that is shown post debate? Then that would most definitely show the moderator injected themselves into the debate (becoming a de facto debater) and if errant at any point on 'presenting and discussing facts' were very poor at both their job (moderator) and debating.

Not to mention the fact that we have plenty of people already spinning things post debate, that it really isn't necessary to get to the truth during the debate, as what really matters is 'given their assumed knowledge on the issue, what is their proposed policy.' That's what we need to know. If post debate it shows their assumed knowledge is incorrect, we (the press-American people) can then ask them in light of that information, would their policy be different.

I fully expect both participants in these debates will stretch the truth, and/or spin it to match what their proposed policies are aiming for. If there is a gross lie being perpetuated (i.e. all Mexicans alive today are rapists), I would expect the opponent to call that out. If the moderator did, I would expect it to be in form of a question and let the person respond.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How do debate monitors fact check?