529
submitted 1 day ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

Vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz are set to debate this Tuesday. Ahead of the Oct. 1 event, the broadcaster announced that moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan will not fact-check either candidate — Walz and Vance will be responsible for fact-checking one another. The news prompted political scientist Norman Ornstein to lament that though CBS was once “the gold standard for television news,” both “those days and their standards are long gone.”

Ornstein isn’t the only voice objecting to CBS’ announcement, with the condemnation of their choice widespread on social media after CNN previously declined to fact-check candidates during the debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump earlier this year, followed by ABC opting to include brief fact-checks from moderators in the presidential debate between Trump and Kamala Harris.

According to CBS News’ editorial standards, the moderators are there to facilitate the conversation/debate between the candidates, as well as enforce the debate’s rules. However, they leave the responsibility to the candidates when it comes to fact-checking as part of the broadcast. CBS does plan to offer its own form of live fact-checking — but it will be online, rather than directly from the moderators, via its CBS News Confirmed Unit journalists in an online blog.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

vance cant fact check anyone being the admitted liar he is. just like his orange bff he cannot be trusted to be honest

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago
[-] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 13 points 11 hours ago

I will say this debate is inherently riskier than the last one simply because JD Vance is already at his floor. He's the most unpopular VP or VP candidate in history. Worse than Sarah Palin, worse than Spiro Agnew, worse than Aaron Burr.
He loses, nothing changes, he cannot go lower barring Mark Robinson tier revelations and even then I have doubts. He wins, Walz slips a point or two, Harris by extension maybe 1/4th of a point.

Really anything that can stop the bleed for the Republicans is a win for them, October is critical. Harris rode a 6 week high after getting in at the end of July, spent the first two weeks undoing the pit Biden had dug, then got boosts from the VP pick and convention that lasted until early September. Trump finally had trends on his side and the debate utterly wrecked that. That's finally fading again so they really are seeking a win, a screw up here could be too late to wait out and Vance getting some good press could bury stuff like the Uncle Robinson(no relation) disaster.

The other problem is that he's young, really young, Teddy young. JD Vance is young enough he can fake it for a little bit in a way Trump is just too old to do these days. He's baitable, but not to the level of Trump or even Biden in this environment. Young Narcissists can put on a face for a while in a controlled space like this, 80s Trump did it all the time and I'd argue Vance might be sharper than him.

I don't think it's a bad matchup, Walz is very wholesome and more experienced(and the reverse would be very unideal for the Democrats. Vance would be better at avoiding the massive tangents Harris baited Trump into, meanwhile Walz isn't as high energy or effective on the pursuit against Trump as Harris is) , but he definitely 'looks' and 'sounds' older than he is, especially compared to Harris. So Walz is walking in with that already there.

[-] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 49 points 18 hours ago
[-] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 10 hours ago

Whatever happened to "criticize?'

[-] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Too boring! We need drama, baby! Endless, exhausting drama brings those sweet, sweet clicks! That's why we love Trump!

[-] klemptor@startrek.website 3 points 9 hours ago

That's been turned against the critic. Some people view "criticizism" the same as nitpicking and complaining.

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 14 hours ago

So sick of the over-use of "slam". Where it does work? "Car door slams finger." Elsewhere? No. Never.

[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 12 points 14 hours ago
[-] irreticent@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago
[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 13 hours ago

Domestic violence news

[-] DokPsy@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago

What about after the words "Everybody get up, it's time to" or "come on and"?

[-] mitchty@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 15 hours ago

Easy blah blah obliterates/annihilates their opponent in alleged debate.

We might as well go for the most obscene words at this point.

[-] bricklove@midwest.social 10 points 18 hours ago

Mysticpickle drops bombshell on journalists. Entire industry collapses!

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 96 points 22 hours ago

So they're just going to let Vance fearmonger the country into a race war.

Cool. Cool cool cool.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 31 points 19 hours ago

I refuse to upvote any post woth the word "slammed" in the title

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 25 points 15 hours ago

"Article title slammed by Feathercrown"

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 11 points 19 hours ago

That really ripped me.

[-] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 18 points 18 hours ago

A vanishingly small number of US voters are even going to watch this. There is wildcard baseball and a bunch of other crap happening at the exact same time.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago

Theres no point in watching it without fact checking and moderation, without those its just gonna be republican propaganda with occasional interjections by easily ignored sanity.

[-] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 242 points 1 day ago

At this point, refusing to fact-check a debate is just a tacit admission that you want to help the GOP. After all, JD Vance is on record saying he has no problem lying and making up things if he thinks it's politically advantageous. Tim Walz shouldn't have to cut into his time correcting the lies of an established liar. Why have journalists involved at all? Seems like it'd be cheaper to hire some bozo off the street to read the questions and only enforce time limits on the Democrat. You don't need Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan to accomplish that.

Tim has come out guns blazing. I'd let him go head to head against Vance with no fact checks. I just wish they'd get rid of the moderators, though, if they aren't going to moderate.

Just put a jar between them and they can pull a card if the discussion dies down.

JD would just end up putting the jar between some couch cushions....

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 102 points 1 day ago

CBS does plan to offer its own form of live fact-checking — but it will be online, rather than directly from the moderators, via its CBS News Confirmed Unit journalists in an online blog.

So the attention of the viewer is divided or they don't even know that there is an online live fact check.

Sounds more than fishy

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 20 hours ago

I vote for big true/false gauge behind them both. The needle swings as the speaker speaks. Maybe a flashing red light for insane lies and green for absolute truth.

But they would need real fact checkers voting on the truthfulness in real time to make it work.

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago

Maybe their mic should get quieter each time they lie lol

[-] Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 20 hours ago
[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago

"Uh, well, I, uh ... the question is-is vague. You don't say what kind of couch, whether anyone is watching or, uh... At any rate, I certainly wouldn't fuck the couch!"

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 19 hours ago

The best thing about this joke is how protesting will make him sound so much more guilty of it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 187 points 1 day ago

I feel like Walz will be able to call Vance on whatever bullshit he's peddling... but not having a neutral fact checker is a terrible idea.

[-] dan1101@lemm.ee 35 points 21 hours ago

Vance can spew out so much BS that Walz won't be able to make any points of his own.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 10 points 18 hours ago

That is Trump's tactic, which worked wonders when debating against Biden. I was glad when Harris shut that shit down by basically saying "I told you he was going to spout a bunch of bullshit, anyway my point is..."

[-] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 102 points 1 day ago

And also Walz doesn't need to be wasting all of his allotted time fact checking an admitted liar. Not a ton of actual "News" in this article, but several of the referenced comments were funny/made good points like that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 95 points 1 day ago

He says she says. What a way to run a debate. Terrible idea!

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 66 points 1 day ago

This is a requirement of modern right-populist politics. They won't play defense, so they just say crap and you're always chasing the latest nonsense and never get to make a point.

Of course the counter to this is for Walz to make this a non-stop couch-fucking roast from minute one. I'm talking opening statement is about upholstery, fabric texture, visualize choices for lubricant and material combos. Just go all in on the furniture abuse right away.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] xc2215x@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago

Vance will be fact checked way more.

[-] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago
[-] CatZoomies@lemmy.world 14 points 22 hours ago

To slams, you say?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
529 points (96.3% liked)

News

22962 readers
4829 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS