So I guess no one is supposed to notice

[senseandsensibility]

that if the candidates have to fact check each other tonight, one of them will have a big job to do in addition to giving their own views, and the other will be able to just lie away and trust that their opponent is telling the truth?

In other words, corporate media and others, JD Vance (R) will lie continually, and Walz will not. So, Walz will not be able to spend as much time giving the Democratic vision for America because he will have two job to do.

And, if that isn't clear enough, Walz will be required to do his job and the elite millionaire "journalists'" job at the same time. That's because they are afraid of violent maga cult members, their corporate owners have given them orders, or a combination of the two.

I will leave you with this: if journalists don't want to do their job, what is their purpose?

[3catwoman3]

1. I don't "get" this no fact checking BS.

Especially when one POTUS candidate lies every time he opens his mouth, and his running mate admits to making stuff up if it suits his purposes.

Prohibiting fact checking is so irresponsible.

[senseandsensibility]

2. The journalists should be ashamed

This whole no fact checking thing is akin to teachers being told not to explain anything as they teach. Seriously, fact checking is that essential to the practice of journalism.

[Quanto Magnus]

19. They'll get paid one way or another

why would those wealthy talking heads actually do their job?

[Walleye]

3. Walz should say something like. JD Vance, you lying sack of shit everything you said is a lie, then go onto his answer

And if he keeps lying, he should say something like, are you still fucking your couch?

[senseandsensibility]

4. I'm for it!

Seriously, I think that's a winning strategy and would put a spotlight on the lying! Let them whine about bad language and name calling. That would be hysterical coming from the R's.

[Walleye]

5. Yep from this point on, we should not give a good green shit what Republicans have to say

[birdographer]

10. This is what I was thinking

Don't waste time. Tell the viewers he is lying and CBS is running real-time fact checking on their website (or so they have been saying), so rather than waste his time doing the moderators' job, he will simply refer them to CBS online to see the list of lies. Shady is SO unlikeable and weird that his lying may be just a small part of what I imagine will be his failure. Walz needs to treat it as if he is debating a spoiled 6-year-old and just answer questions without giving time to the little obnoxious kid.

[Redleg]

6. If they aren't going to fact check then they need to give more time for rebuttals

I think it is a lousy idea to not fact check but they GOP has worked the refs for so long that they are afraid to call b.s. on b.s.

[senseandsensibility]

7. Unfortunately even if more response time is allowed

the Dems will be at a disadvantage because the lying is all coming from one side. Shhh...we're obviously not supposed to mention that.

[Redleg]

9. Good point- maybe the Dems should cry "rigged debate"

but we won't because Walz is going to prevail anyway.

[Rebl2]

16. If there

is no fact checking, then there should be no debate.

[ancianita]

8. OR, all Walz has to do is note every lie and just SAY it's a lie, then proceed with his answer.

I think Walz can handle both. AND he can continually bait Vance by calling out each and every lie -- and by night's end, Walz can have Vance labeled a liar and his own answers be solid in content.

THEN, if they're not lazy, let the moderators do followup questions to Vance throughout the debate -- which will get him mired in defending his lies. And then he'll clearly LOSE the debate.

[tavernier]

25. And that's a lie... and that's a lie...

And there’s another lie.



Absolutely, especially with his deep, strong voice.

[ancianita]

26. Yep. It will take all of 30 secs of his time, and then he can quickly get on with content that wins him the debate.

Walz can multitask. He can get three times as many ideas in during his time as Vance can squeeze lies into his time.

Walz has got this.

[SomedayKindaLove]

29. Walz can sing The Boxer

That’s a lie! Lie lie lie lie lie lie lie, lie lie lie!
Lie lie lie lie lie lie lie, lie lie lie lie lie…

[Clouds Passing]

11. Money & Fame.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

12. I plan to watch on MSNBC.

I hope Rachel and the gang will fact check, even if they can't fact-check directly to the debaters.

[Rebl2]

13. I believe

candidates should demand the moderators fact check in real time or there will be no debate.

[appalachiablue]

24. ++

[NoMoreRepugs]

14. Walz should just keep shaking his head and each time prior to answering the question

should say “JD, how do you keep your nose from growing??”

[hvn_nbr_2]

23. Two words...and then go on with his answer

"Two Pinocchios." "Four Pinocchios." "That one had so many Pinocchios that I have to duck when you turn your head this way."

[DownriverDem]

15. Walz should

just say you lie! Then give the Dems points he wants to tell.

[WarGamer]

17. In classic debates... is the moderator supposed to fact check?

Oxford Debate Style??

Or do they let the participants fact check each other like adults?

[Bev54]

18. I agree and I do think at the very least a fact checker should be live posting on the screen

at the same time. If they refuse to do their jobs then to hell with the debates, they are no longer debates but a platform for lies.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Give each lie about seven words: "He lied about the numbers", "He lied: he told Congress to block the immigration bill"

Your OP point is good, so ....

Spend the absolute minimal amount of time on each lie. If Vance goes really thick, then just say "There four lies about the economy and crime in that little rant of his."

Let the campaign team detail each lie after the debate. Rub journalists noses in it if they don't give it proper coverage.

[BadgerMom]

21. Going forward, I think the party should establish published guidelines listing what is and is not acceptable.

If the network that wants to run the debate doesn’t wish to observe the rules, the Democrats should refuse. I recognize rules are hammered out each time, but it seems basic fact-checking should be foundational or we just don’t debate. Honestly, I find these debates far more stressful than informative anyway.

[Chili Pepper]

22. Another scenario I can see happening

is Walz will make a true statement and then Vance will "fact-check" him with a lie. Similar to his Springfield-Haitian diatribe.

This is just ridiculous. With no on-screen fact checking on the TV broadcast, anyone off the street could moderate the debate since all they'll be doing is asking pre-determined questions.

[senseandsensibility]

41. Yeah, what's to stop him?

I hadn't thought of that.

[themaguffin]

27. If I were Walz I would steamroll through the debate. I would not adhere to time and interrupt lies. Period.

[Biophilic]

28. So what is the purpose of the current media.

What do these people do to earn their money and positions. Once upon a time I trusted and looked up to the press. Once upon a time they had real purpose and useful position in this country. No longer. And that’s sad.

[LearnedHand]

36. Realize positive and ever-growing value for shareholders

Which is diametrically opposed to their constitutional responsibilities.

[Biophilic]

40. A bit frustrating isn't it?

[Montauk6]

30. But this is in line with the American Political System, no?

The Refiblicans create chaos and make a huge mess, while the Dems have to put aside their true calling and mission to go over and clean everything up.

[unblock]

31. If facts don't matters journalism merely provides a venue. No value-add.

Once they perfected the voice of "gravitas", that journalistic-sounding seriousness in their voice, they turned the substance of their job into a joke.

The key thing is gravitas. Once you can fake that, you've got it made....

Once upon a time, I watched the news for information, as in facts. These days, the only "facts" they care about is that it's a fact that someone said something. If the something they said is a lie it's not their problem. Hell, it makes their story more interesting.

To avoid fact-checking is to say that facts are up for partisan debate, and *that* is a cornerstone of fascism.

[LearnedHand]

38. They haven't had journalistic responsibility since the Telecommunications Act of 1996

They are strictly beholden to shareholders and ONLY shareholders.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

32. CBS Offers QR Code to Fact-Check VP Debate in Real Time

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/cbs-offers-qr-code-to-fact-check-vp-debate-in-real-time

Viewers of the Vice Presidential debate on CBS tonight will be able to use QR codes to fact check Republican VP Candidate JD Vance and Democratic VP Candidate Tim Walz.

Fact-checking has had a rather checkered history in recent campaign debates, with certain presidential candidates advocating the process—which allows moderators to correct incorrect statements from the debate stage—while others claim biased moderators corrupt the events.

Former President Donald Trump, for example, severely criticized moderators of the only debate between himself and Vice President Kamala Harris last month, calling for one of the moderators—ABC News Anchor David Muir—to be fired and for the FCC to repeal ABC’s broadcast license, eliciting this response from FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel:

“The First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy,” she said. “The FCC does not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

CBS News, which will air the debate live tonight at 9:00 p.m. ET, is taking another approach—offering up a QR code for viewers to scan with their devices that wil take them to a CBS News website where about 20 CBS journalists will fact-check the debaters comments in real-time, according to the New York Times. Although the debate will be simulcast on most major broadcast and news networks, the code will only appear on CBS.

“The idea is to give people that second-screen experience,” said Claudia Milne, the senior vice president for standards and practices at CBS News told the Times, adding, “The audience can get the takeaway they need in a responsible and smart way.”

The debate will be moderated by Norah O’Donnell, the anchor of “CBS Evening News” and Margaret Brennan, host of CBS’s Sunday morning political talk show “Face the Nation,” and marks the first time a presidential or vice presidential debate has been moderated by two women. Ms O’Donnell will be stepping down after the election.

[kacekwl]

33. Don't bother fact checking.

Just say it's a lie and move on with your answer. It's a waste of time. If people are interested in checking let them.

[carpetbagger]

34. Walz just needs to be himself.

I don't think anyone's ever cared about facts in a VP debate. It's always been about how the personalities present. Tim Walz is a personable guy, not like Vance. All he has to do is to memorize his responses to Vance's attacks on his character. Vance will sound as tired as Pence and Paul Ryan. I don't see Vance trying to introduce himself sympathetically. That leaves Walz to look at the camera and chat for 90 minutes, then slap his knees and say "whelp". And he wins, because if Vance looks directly at the camera, everyone gets the creeps.

[LearnedHand]

35. NEVER argue from their framework

You've already lost if you do. Do what Harris did: In essence, "I reject your framing of the issue and I reject your vision for this country." Then turn to the cameras and frame a positive view for everyone.

[Morbius]

37. Trump lied quite a lot in his debate with Kamala Harris.

The VP didn't waste time and energy "fact-checking" him. She focused on getting her message out. She didn't just win the debate; by all accounts, she crushed him. Walz can do the same; let the obvious lies go without comment because social media as well as mainstream media are likely to point out the most outrageous lies.

Also, bear in mind this is a VP debate, and therefore won't get as many eyeballs as the Presidential debate. The best thing Walz can do is get a "You're no Jack Kennedy" moment.

[senseandsensibility]

39. David Muir and the female journalist (sorry, forgot her name)

both fact checked extensively. You can't compare the situations. I started a thread the day after the Harris/Cheato debate complimenting them both. I think it's important to point out when journalists are doing their jobs, and they were, much to my surprise.