Currently, national politics parallels a sports league.

The Democrats and Republicans are the two dominating teams. They are the Cleveland Cavaliers and Golden State Warriors of the late 2010s. Other teams and parties exist, but they are never significant enough to pose a challenge against the consecutive reigning champions and finalists. There is nonstop, 24-hour news coverage that analyzes every decision made and every word spoken by every important person. 

The Sept. 10 debate between the team captains, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, was the big game between the players who earned the starting positions. 

All sports have rules, which are agreed to by the teams and adjusted when needed. Officials enforce the rules to keep the game under control.

Sometimes, the officials are criticized after controversial penalties. They are also criticized for not calling penalties when viewers believe one is necessary.

In the Sept. 10 debate, the officials became part of the conversation through fact-checking. 

This is the penalty that moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis leveraged against Trump several times in the debate. He was first fact-checked on claims about abortions when he argued that some Democratic governors and states were allowing “execution after birth.” Moderators also corrected him after his now infamous suggestion that “the people that came in” are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio.

Trump did not challenge Davis after she fact-checked him on his abortion claims, but he resisted Muir after his fact-check about pets being eaten. He said, “The people on television are saying their dog was eaten by the people that went there,” amid a back-and-forth argument with Muir.

Journalists conducting live fact-checks on social media and news sites is expected for all debates, but it is unusual for a moderator to step into the debate by issuing a fact-check. It is also impossible for moderators to consistently levy them because there is too much information shared with too little time to address every claim. 

When President Joe Biden and Trump debated on June 27, neither candidate was fact-checked. Both made false claims but did not receive pushback from CNN’s moderator Jake Tapper.

The inconsistencies of fact-checking were clear when Trump and Harris debated. Both said falsehoods, but moderators challenged only two of Trump’s claims. 

For example, Trump said the United States left $85 billion in equipment upon the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. This claim is false. Spending in Afghanistan since 2001 totaled $83 billion, but a congressional report determined the military equipment taken by the Taliban was approximately $7 billion. 

Neither moderator challenged Trump on this issue.

For Harris, she argued that Trump would issue a national abortion ban if he was elected. Trump has said repeatedly that he does not support a national abortion ban. 

Harris also escaped without a fact-check.

Returning to the sports analogy, the referees called penalties but not consistently. Ask a fan of any sports team in any league, and the fan will likely recall at least one incident where poor officiating plagued his or her team. 

In the NFL, the pass interference penalty is arguably the game’s most scrutinized rule. Fans’ grievances are often that penalties are missed or called when evidence indicates the opposite. When the contact is questionable, the call becomes a league-wide controversy, especially if it determines the game’s outcome.

Fact-checks work in a similar manner. Not all inaccurate information is the same. Some false claims are out of context, and others are exaggerated or blatantly false. How each person classifies an item of inaccurate information often varies. 

Fact-checking will happen regardless of the moderators’ interventions. The best way to address this burden is to remove it from them. Placing the burden on journalists is perfectly acceptable, and journalists should also embrace this role. They can provide the appropriate attention and detail toward every claim while not having to endure the pressures of moderating a debate and making split-second decisions to steer the conversation.

The best person to fact-check may not be an onlooking journalist, but rather the opposing candidate. The 67 million viewers watched to hear Trump and Harris, not Muir and Davis. If either candidate chooses to speak a falsehood, the other candidate ought to address it in his or her rebuttal. No matter what is said, fact-checkers will dissect the remarks and further explain the quote. Additionally, it will shield the moderators from suspicions about bias and favoritism.

It will be four years before we will see another presidential debate and likely revisit this argument. The host network must decide how to officiate the context. Will moderators stay away from the penalties to distance themselves from the heated post-debate fireworks, or will they insert themselves into the discussion?

Fact-checking everything or nothing is up to the network and the moderators, but Americans should at least expect enforcement to be consistent. If sports fans demand it from officials, then Americans should demand it from moderators during the most important political conversation of the election cycle.

Share