Ahead of last night’s vice presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz, CBS’ decision not to have the moderators provide live fact-checking caused a minor controversy. One expert said this amounted to giving Vance “license to lie” when asked about the truth, and many Democratic supporters voiced similar complaints on social media. Mother Jones even did a preview of the debate. The Kamala Harris campaign’s X account declared: “J.D. Vance is going to lie tonight. A lot. So we’re going to give you the facts.” He then fact-checked events in real time, pointing out Vance’s evasions and deceptions.
At one moment early in the debate, the moderators appeared to be struggling to resist the journalistic urge to correct the record. CBS’ Margaret Brennan contradicted Vance’s point about “illegal immigrants” in Ohio, writing, “To be clear to our viewers, Springfield, Ohio has a large population of Haitian immigrants with legal status. ”, receiving angry opposition from Vance. “The rule was no fact-checking,” he protested.
Other than that one “explanation,” the host did little. But contrary to what liberals believe, the lack of fact-checking likely did not help or harm Vance (and by extension, Donald Trump). The uncomfortable truth is that even though news organizations like CBS are journalistically obligated to challenge lies, politically fact-checking is a magic bean, not a silver bullet.
Ever since Trump descended the escalator of his gaudy tower nearly a decade ago to announce his candidacy for president, the nation has been bombarded with his lies. And fact-checking and combating disinformation have become a new part of national life as media, voters, and President Trump’s opponents seek ways to rein in politicians who have engaged in unprecedented misconduct. have found great importance. In the intervening years, fact-checking has gone from a necessary part of journalistic due diligence to a fetish for Trump-weary Democrats. Some Democrats have come to rely too much on fact-checking, often appearing to approve of debunking certain political powers in order to repel Trumpism.
The 45th president has been subjected to an ongoing fact-checking campaign for the better part of a decade. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that no politician in American history has been fact-checked as thoroughly as Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the busting of long-held myths has had little impact on his electoral viability. He succeeded in attracting new voters in the last election. And while spewing racist nonsense about immigrants (a myth completely debunked by journalists), he is increasing the percentage of non-college-educated voters of color in this election.
My point is not that Democrats should stop fact-checking, but that they need to remember that debunking is no substitute for politics. During last month’s presidential debate, when President Trump repeated the conspiracy about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, the moderator duly corrected this bit of xenophobic fear-mongering. Harris appeared to enjoy debunking Trump’s lies on live television. “Talk about extremes,” she said with a laugh, seemingly enjoying the moment.
What Ms. Harris did not do was take the opportunity to make something clear about her worldview and policy positions on immigration, or what Mr. Springfield did to counter the economic damage of decades of deindustrialization. He pointed out that the country has welcomed immigrants as a way to do so. Trade policies that supported offshore manufacturing were themselves a result of conservatism. Basking in the glow of newly confirmed facts, she outlined a positive agenda as if defeating Trump was a game of whack-a-mole, where she won by slamming every whine that came up. I forgot.
The kind of voters who don’t immediately turn off when they hear President Trump blathering about immigrants’ cat barbecues explain that it’s not actually true while the CNN host nags at him. Does anyone really believe that doing something is likely to move people’s hearts? ?Right-leaning swing voters and thumbing-your-nosed Republicans, when they actually log into the CBS website — even bother — say that Harris isn’t investing in clean air, or that she’s been appointed a “border czar.” Was it done? For that matter, will Democrats upset with Harris reconsider their votes after learning that Walz lied about being in China during the Tiananmen massacre?
CBS probably should have fact-checked the discussion because CBS is a news organization, news organizations provide journalism, and journalists fact-check. But journalists should also be honest about the limits of this practice. Since it is impossible to denounce every falsehood, journalists must make judgments about which lies are significant enough to be dispelled. Republicans distrust the selection process, giving Democrats a pass for dishonesty while turning a blind eye to a spate of misinformation they believe is unfairly directed at Republicans. And all too often, journalists spout brazen lies while also telling lies of omission themselves. Many journalists have ignored for months the fact that Joe Biden is deteriorating right before our eyes, with videos of the octogenarian president looking visibly disoriented in what has been called a “cheap fake.” He boldly told the American people that there was.
Imposing political wishes on fact-checking is not only bad for journalism, as it becomes a partisan tool. This is bad for Democrats, too, and it makes them forget to make a clear case to the American people that they have better policies. Donald Trump remains a fixture in American life not because of a lack of fact-checking, but because neither Republicans nor Democrats alike have made a convincing case that politicians have the truth. Body. Make a better offer than his lies.