As someone who has witnessed the evolution of political discourse over the years, I must say that ABC News’ decision to fact-check presidential candidates during debates is a refreshing change. It’s like finally having a trusted friend at the dinner table who politely corrects your political misconceptions without making you feel embarrassed.
It’s official: TV-news anchors can fact-check presidential candidates during a national debate.
During a period when many news organizations aim to avoid criticism from political factions, ABC News took an unusual step on Tuesday by allowing moderators during a presidential debate to fact-check the candidates, particularly former President Donald Trump, as the conversation unfolded, a practice that is usually absent in such events. The moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, frequently granted additional time to Trump’s responses to Vice President Kamala Harris’ statements, but they also intervened forcefully by debunking certain claims made by Trump, labeling them as false or baseless. These included his assertions about infanticide and cannibalism among immigrants.
“Davis stated emphatically that there’s nowhere in the country where it is acceptable to murder a newborn, following Trump’s story about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz – Harris’ vice-presidential partner – condoning the killing of babies born full term. Contrary to Trump’s questionable assertion regarding immigrants in Ohio consuming pets like cats and dogs, Muir corrected him by mentioning that ABC News had contacted the city manager of Springfield (the town Trump mentioned) and found no substantiated evidence supporting such claims.
Trump stated, “On TV, they claim, ‘My pet was stolen and consumed,'” to which Muir replied, “I’m not getting this from TV, I’m getting it directly from the city manager.
Spokespersons for ABC News could not be reached for immediate comment.
In most instances, live fact-checking hasn’t been a common feature during TV news interviews or debates. CNN opted not to include it during their June debate between Trump and President Biden, moderated by Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. The consensus is that these forums offer newsmakers and interesting individuals the opportunity to provide in-depth responses to questions, allowing viewers to form their own opinions about what they hear. Moreover, many TV hosts express concern about engaging in a “who’s right, who’s wrong” argument on television, fearing it may alienate viewers who might choose to watch something else instead.
In my experience, I’ve found that the more challenging the question, the better it is to keep the response low-key and straightforward. This approach shifts the focus solely onto the question at hand and the answer provided, rather than turning it into a debate or a showcase of ego between the candidate and the interviewer. As I learned during my intense interviews with candidates like Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump, it’s not an easy task to maintain this balance, but it is essential for maintaining professionalism and integrity in journalism. (Source: Tapper’s statement to EbMaster in 2016)
ABC News leaders were certainly thinking along those lines. Davis and Muir refrained from raising their voices or engaging in heated debates with Trump. Instead, they politely corrected him by stating that his statements were incorrect, and provided evidence to support their claims.
Others have been wading these waters before. At 10 PM, Abby Philip moderates a lively discussion on CNN’s “NewsNight”, where a diverse panel tackles the day’s issues. When someone provides incorrect or misleading information, Philip politely sets the record straight by sharing CNN’s findings without raising her voice.
Historically, presidential debates have been quite formal events, due to the organization process led by the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates since 1988. They selected moderators independently. However, contemporary politics appear to have outgrown traditional boundaries. The candidates and their campaigns prefer to cater to their respective constituencies and sidestep certain aspects of conventional debate setup, which aim to restrict some of the outbursts that have become commonplace in our social-media driven era (and frequently fail to achieve this goal).
Since the establishment of the organization for presidential debates in 1987 by both Republican and Democratic parties, there have been instances where these parties have sought alternative methods to the ones originally planned. In 2020, during their final debate hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), Trump and Biden opted out, instead participating in separate town hall events. Biden appeared on ABC News, while NBC News organized a counter-program with Savannah Guthrie moderating Trump’s town hall.
Now, everything about these debates is up for grabs.
In previous years, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) often organized events closer to Election Day in November. However, recognizing that voters may already have cast their ballots by mail at this point, the campaigns aim to take advantage of this by holding debates earlier. Unlike before, these debates were not organized by the CPD but distributed by various TV networks. The moderator for the debate was chosen by a non-partisan organization. In 2024, however, major media companies have taken over the role of organizers, using the debates as a platform to boost their own anchors and correspondents and gain visibility for their trademarks and graphics. They even interrupt the conversation with commercial breaks. With the challenges posed by streaming video and declining linear audiences, these broadcasts must generate revenue, or they may no longer serve any purpose.
ABC News’ decision had its detractors. Some Trump supporters felt Muir and Davis focused their fact-checks on Trump and not on Harris. During CNN’s post-event analysis, David Urban, a former Trump advisor, felt the moderators put Trump under a microscope that they didn’t use on Harris. Yet Scott Jennings, a conservative stalwart on CNN, told him that “It is a little hard to complain about the refs when you’re not making your own jump shots.”
ABC News, recently helmed by Almin Karamehmedovic as president, is set to demonstrate new achievements. This debate marks the first significant event under his leadership, which commenced less than a month ago. Furthermore, it serves as a substantial production under Debra O’Connell, who assumed control over both ABC stations and its national news gathering operations in February. Over the past few months, she has devoted much effort to restructuring ABC News.
It’s uncertain if other news networks will follow ABC News’ lead, but this much is certain: The guidelines that previously regulated presidential debates and other news special events likely won’t remain the same – they could be altered permanently.
Read More
- Discovering the Infinite Power: The Abiotic Factor that Could Change Everything
- Skull and Bones: Navigating the Quest for Extra Teeth in the Game
- AAVE PREDICTION. AAVE cryptocurrency
- The Last Epoch Dilemma: Confronting the Gold Dupe Crisis
- BONE PREDICTION. BONE cryptocurrency
- Finding Resources in Palworld: Tips from the Community
- Uncovering the Mystery of Red King Players in Clash Royale – What Reddit Users Have to Say
- UFO PREDICTION. UFO cryptocurrency
- Gaming News: Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth’s Dondoko Island Takes Expansion to New Heights
- Diablo Lag Issues: Is the Latest Update Playing Tricks on Gamers?
2024-09-11 18:17