Should moderators fact-check? Veteran broadcast debate host, journalism professor weigh in

CBS News says its moderators will not fact-check vice presidential candidates Tim Walz and JD Vance when the two square off in their first and only debate this election, instead relying on the politicians to correct one another.

CNN did the same during its presidential candidate debate over the summer, while ABC News anchors offered some interjections about factual errors last month.

So what is the role of a moderator? Should they fact-check politicians in real-time on air, and if so, to what extent?

MPR News host emeritus Gary Eichten and University of Minnesota associate professor and director of the Minnesota Journalism Center Benjamin Toff joined Morning Edition Host Cathy Wurzer to talk about the positives and perils of live political debates.

Turn Up Your Support

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.

The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity. Listen to the lively conversation by clicking the player button.

Ninety minutes, no audience, open mics, no fact-checking by the moderators. How might those ground rules affect the dynamics of the debate?

Gary Eichten: Well, I mean, without an audience — that's a big thing — and without the fact-checking, I don't know. I'm glad they're not going to do real-time fact-checking like that for the moderators. I'm very happy about that because I think that's just an unbearable, unreasonable burden on the people who are moderating these debates.

Did you do fact-check live in your day?

Eichten: Nope. No. My theory was, Cathy, I’d leave it to the other candidate. You know, if Candidate A makes some outrageous statement, Candidate B should point that out, and they can discuss it among themselves; if Candidate B seems a little hesitant to do that you might prod Candidate A a little bit. But really, if Candidate B doesn't think it's important enough to challenge Candidate A, maybe it isn't that important, or the voters can make their own decision.

I had a journalism professor back in the day say that if one person says it's sunny and the other person says it's raining, it's your job to look out the window and determine what's really happening. So what's the job of a debate moderator in real-time in making sure the truth is told?

Benjamin Toff: Yeah, it's a tough question, because, you know, of course, there are many commentators and analysts and journalism professors who've been quite critical of CBS News for this decision, who really do see it as an abdication of the responsibility as journalists to help the public understand what is true and what is false.

CBS is fact-checking online, and the reality is, many people watch these debates while also looking at another screen at the same time. And so it's not as though people don't have access to that information as they're watching.

But the question is really sort of the dynamic in the room, and to what degree CBS wants to insert its moderators as part of the conversation while really what they're trying to do is facilitate a dialog between the candidates to help the public really get to know these two figures who could become president or vice president.

CBS using a QR code to fact-check seems pretty unique. Has that been done before?

Toff: Not that I'm aware. I mean, of course, news organizations have often provided a whole lot of content online and usually reference their websites during these kinds of events. But I'm not sure using a QR code has been something that's been done before.

Getting back to having the candidates fact-check each other. When you're doing that in real time, there's a lot of pressure on the moderator, right? But if Candidate B doesn't decide, as you say, to fact-check Candidate A and a few whoppers of lies go out, are you really doing your job?

Eichten: Yes. I think the job in this case is to be moderating this debate and not getting into a debate with the candidates.

I mean, you'd hope that Candidate B would speak up, but then again, maybe Candidate B doesn't care enough about that issue. I don't know, but I think moderators should be moderating. I think follow-up questions are a great way to deal with this, as opposed to putting themselves on a pedestal and claiming to be experts.

Oftentimes there aren't the follow-up questions. What should the role of local, regional media be in fact-checking, say Tim Walz's record versus coverage from national outlets?

Eichten: I mean, we technically should know a lot more about this than the national people, and so if we can provide readers, listeners, viewers, with information that they're not going to get from the national outlets, all the better, because it is our job to inform people as to who these candidates are and what they stand for.

So both mics are going to be open. That might allow the candidates to interact with one another, and that could result in some fireworks. Are you okay with seeing candidates fight with each other on air?

Toff: I think to some degree the news organization has to leave it to the candidates to sort of police the decorum of these situations. And, you know, I think both candidates are conscious of the fact that they are trying to reach undecided voters and people who are really still getting to know both of these individuals. And so they don't have a lot of incentive, really, to get you know too aggressive in terms of the conflict that they're creating on stage. I think both of them are trying to really let voters understand who they are as people and get to know them on that level.

The other piece of this, when it comes to fact-checking is, not that the facts don't matter, but the sort of chief task for both of these candidates is really to connect with people on a human level during the debate itself. And so it's only partly about the factual information about what they're talking about. The other part of it, a big part of it, is how they're coming across as individuals.

Eichten: I don't have a lot of problems with them mixing it up, but I think Professor Toff hits it right on the nose. I mean, if one of the candidates, is insistent upon a lot of arguing, fighting, name-calling, I don't think that's going to serve them well, and I think they will pay the price for that. And so if there's a clear agreement in advance what the rules are, and somebody decides ‘to heck with it,’ I think they will be penalized for that.

As a moderator, I used to be okay too with candidates mixing it up, because I think it really shows the viewer how each individual handles themselves under pressure. Say, gentlemen, because we are so polarized in this society, and there are very few voters who have not made up their minds on a candidate, is there still value to a debate like this?

Toff: I think there is value to this. There are only so many opportunities to really hear directly at length from candidates during a campaign. And although the percentage of the public who are undecided remains small, this is a very, very close election. And so every opportunity like this can be quite meaningful. I do think that there remains a sort of real role to play for these kinds of events.

Eichten: Absolutely. you're not going to change a lot of votes tonight, but at least people will get a better sense of who might be the next, who is going to be the next Vice President of the United States.