Vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz are set to debate this Tuesday. Ahead of the Oct. 1 event, the broadcaster announced that moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan will not fact-check either candidate — Walz and Vance will be responsible for fact-checking one another. The news prompted political scientist Norman Ornstein to lament that though CBS was once “the gold standard for television news,” both “those days and their standards are long gone.”

Ornstein isn’t the only voice objecting to CBS’ announcement, with the condemnation of their choice widespread on social media after CNN previously declined to fact-check candidates during the debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump earlier this year, followed by ABC opting to include brief fact-checks from moderators in the presidential debate between Trump and Kamala Harris.

According to CBS News’ editorial standards, the moderators are there to facilitate the conversation/debate between the candidates, as well as enforce the debate’s rules. However, they leave the responsibility to the candidates when it comes to fact-checking as part of the broadcast. CBS does plan to offer its own form of live fact-checking — but it will be online, rather than directly from the moderators, via its CBS News Confirmed Unit journalists in an online blog.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    191
    ·
    1 month ago

    I feel like Walz will be able to call Vance on whatever bullshit he’s peddling… but not having a neutral fact checker is a terrible idea.

    • ALQ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      103
      ·
      1 month ago

      And also Walz doesn’t need to be wasting all of his allotted time fact checking an admitted liar. Not a ton of actual “News” in this article, but several of the referenced comments were funny/made good points like that.

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 month ago

      Vance can spew out so much BS that Walz won’t be able to make any points of his own.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 month ago

        That is Trump’s tactic, which worked wonders when debating against Biden. I was glad when Harris shut that shit down by basically saying “I told you he was going to spout a bunch of bullshit, anyway my point is…”

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The Gish Gallop seems to have become a common right wing tactic.

        Flood the field with so much bullshit that the opponent can’t address most of it the time available.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Time concerns aside, this will just make GOP say “they have their own idea of truth”. Which is correct but the causality is vice versa.

    • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Any attempt at fact checking will not be neutral. You can fact check obvious hyperbole, you can fact check because of slight misinterpretations, you can decide NOT to fact check. As soon as you decide to do it, you open the door for bias or accusations of bias.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Reality isn’t neutral, facts are objective. If there’s something that different stances on and both be personally correct then it’s an opinion.

        • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yes facts are objective, but when you decide to fact check or not fact check is completely subjective. Fact checking statements out of context can be misleading in themselves, and fact checking statements that were misinterpreted by the fact checkers is also influenced by bias.