Fact-Checking Debates

Ryan Heshmati

September 13, 2024

On Tuesday night, tens of millions of Americans tuned in to the second 2024 presidential debate (the first with Kamala Harris). Anybody who watched the event would say there is plenty to analyze about the night: rhetoric on reproductive rights, economic policy, foreign affairs, and even the handling of mic muting. Perhaps most notably, however, it is worth considering the implications of ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis deciding to fact-check Former President Trump on several claims made during the debate. For the purposes of this analysis, the details of their fact-checking are beside the point, but the move by ABC does bring the question of whether or not debate moderators should fact-check.

What is the role of a debate moderator? Critics of the moderators' fact-checking would argue that their obligation in the debate is not to clarify the facts on issues but rather facilitate discussion between the two candidates, providing each one the opportunity to keep the other accountable to fact. However, others who disagree might point to the potential harm in letting lies disseminate through the television screens of tens of millions of American families. Even if that is worthy enough of a reason to value fact-checking in debates, how do moderators decide which statements should be fact-checked?

Suppose a candidate asserts that their administration created 1.3 million jobs, but the real figure is only 1.2 million. Should the moderator interrupt and correct them in that case? If not, how about if they say it was 1.5 million? Or 2 million? 10? These decisions would need to be made constantly throughout the event and in real time. Regardless of when moderators decide to fact-check, the nature of live debates will almost certainly result in an imbalance between the number of fact-checks done for each candidate. In turn, that disparity would provoke claims of bias from pundits and campaign teams, just as after the September 10th debate.

The fact-checking during Tuesday night’s debate might very well have opened a can of worms that future election campaigns will have to navigate. There may not be a clear answer to whether there is a place for moderator fact-checking in presidential debates. Even if there is one, though, it must be cautiously decided, especially in the context of fast-paced conversations that presidential debates entail. In a profoundly polarizing political sphere like the present moment, fact-checking could help keep rhetoric closer to reality, but at what cost?