ABC's Moderators Failed to Fact-Check Kamala Harris

This week's first and possibly only debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump was not nearly as consequential as the June debate, which ended President Joe Biden's political career. It also differed in another key way: The moderation was incredibly one-sided and unfair.

Want more on free speech, social media, and why everyone in the media is wrong everywhere all the time? Sign up for Free Media from Reason and Robby Soave.

This was not true of the previous debate, between Biden and Trump. CNN's Jake Tapper and Dana Bash asked questions but did not interrupt or attempt to fact-check the candidates—they left that to Trump and Biden. Such an approach is preferable; politicians make so many incorrect statements that if the moderators really felt the need to intervene every single time, debates would devolve into showdowns between the moderators and each candidate, which isn't the point. There are also frequent examples of moderators asserting that a given claim is abjectly false when it may be complicated, ambiguous, or a case where reasonable minds disagree.

ABC's David Muir and Linsey Davis thrice followed a remark by Trump with an attempt to fact-check him. These fact-checks introduced valid, conflicting information; Trump said violence in the U.S. was out of control and the moderators pointed to FBI data that contradicts this, and Trump said that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets—a completely erroneous claim.

But when Harris made statements that could have been fact-checked, the moderators declined to do so.

Harris said that Trump had threatened there would be a "bloodbath" if he lost the election, and Harris implied that this was a threat of actual political violence; the moderators could have pointed out that Trump was describing the state of the economy under prospective progressive governance. Harris also said there were currently no U.S. military service members in active combat zones; this is flatly untrue, as American troops are currently serving in informal war zones in places like Iraq and Syria.

Then there was bias reflected in the kinds of questions the candidates were asked. Trump was deservedly grilled on his appalling conduct surrounding the 2020–2021 presidential transition, and comments he made about Harris' race. Meanwhile, Harris fielded zero questions about her complicity in the vast cover-up of Biden's cognitive decline and infirmity. When she declined to give specific reasons for her flip-flopping on fracking—or even concede that she has flip-flopped—the moderators did not follow up.

Trump largely failed to elucidate his vision for making the country a better place, and for that he has no one to blame but himself. Still, this debate was often a three-on-one affair, and there's no reason for that. Future debates should stick to the CNN model.

During the debate, Trump gestured at a viral claim on X and asserted that Haitian migrants living in Springfield, Ohio, are stealing and eating pet dogs and cats.

Springfield police have said there are no reports of stolen pets. Just because the police are not paying attention to an issue doesn't mean it's made up, but it should also be emphasized that there are no credible claims of pet-eating being made on social media. The one cited instance of a person accused of eating a neighbor's pet cat did not involve a Haitain migrant and did not take place in Springfield.

Springfield residents have claimed that the migrants hunted wild ducks and geese, killing and perhaps eating them. If people are not respecting the rules of the commons, local authorities should do something about it. But this is obviously a far milder problem. Killing people's pets is wrong; killing wild birds is not. Duck-hunting isn't even some specifically Haitian custom, as conservatives well know.

AI-generated memes of Trump protecting ducks and kittens have gone very viral on social media lately. It's fine to laugh at these. But anyone who truly believes that pets are routinely abducted in small-town America by gangs of migrants has fallen for a hoax.

On the other side, some commentators who correctly identified Trump's citation of the Haitian pet-eaters as fake news nevertheless failed to note that a second wild-seeming claim—about Harris' support for gender-affirming care for detained illegal immigrants—was actually true.

"Trump made history last night for sure," wrote The New Yorker's Susan Glasser on X. "Who will ever forget him ranting on stage about immigrants eating people's dogs? Or insisting that the Vice President 'wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in jail'?"

But as CNN's Andrew Kaczynski reported earlier this week, Harris did in fact support this policy. In 2019, she answered a questionnaire from the American Civil Liberties Union indicating that she would support paying for detained migrants to undergo gender transition surgery.

TIME magazine must have missed the CNN story. In a write-up of the debate, TIME knocked Trump for accusing Harris of supporting such a policy. Finally, the magazine had to add a correction, making clear that their own fact-check needed a fact-check.

Amber Duke joins me to discuss Harris' policies, the war on Elon Musk, Bernie Sanders admitting that Kamala has flip-flopped, and the Democratic Party welcoming the Cheney family into the fold.

I neglected to mention last week that I saw Wolverine and Deadpool… and it was great! While the MCU has gone totally off the rails since Avengers: Endgame, this film succeeded in making me excited for whatever comes next. The movie did a particularly good job incorporating aspects of the Loki series on Disney+, including the Time Variance Authority—enforcers of peace throughout the multiverse—and the Void, where time-displaced variant heroes live out their days.

ABC ruined debates for years to come, which is a great disservice to the country.
Now, few people trust any mainstream fake news media.

The Presidential Debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters.

The debates have been a joke since the Uniparty took them from the League of Women Voters. The Uniparty took them so that the major party candidates would never have to face a real debate again.

The Death of Presidential Debates—

https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 3, 1988
LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD"
WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
WASHINGTON, DC —"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.
"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and vas presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.
Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.
"The campaigns' agreement is a closed-door masterpiece," Neuman said. "Never in the history of the League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come to us with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands."
Neuman said she and the League regretted that the American people have had no real opportunities to judge the presidential nominees outside of campaign-controlled environments.
"On the threshold of a new millenium, this country remains the brightest hope for all who cherish free speech and open debate," Neuman said. "Americans deserve to see and hear the men who would be president face each other in a debate on the hard and complex issues critical to our progress into the next century."
Neuman issued a final challenge to both Vice President Bush and Governor Dukakis to "rise above your handlers and agree to join us in presenting the fair and full discussion the American public expects of a League of Women Voters debate."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.