Does a debate "moderator" have a responsibility to correct factual errors?

[jayfish]

I watched/listend to the last 30 minutes of the debate and just about lost my mind. The debaters were allowed to murmur on with one factual error after another. All the while the moderators (were there two?) offered no corrections and no follow-up questions. Only 20 minutes after the debate had finished did we get any kind of fact checking and it was dribbled out one error at a time. I've got news for you CNN; any Republican watching that debate switched the channel over to Faux News the instant it was over. So what is the role of a debate moderator? Do they have any responsibility to ensure a factual discussion?

[SharonAnn]

1. I don't think so. They're Moderators not Interviewers or Journalists.

[phantom power]

3. then again, nobody seems to expect interviewers or journalists to check facts anymore either.

:(

[HappyMe]

2. I don't think so.

Just there to make sure everyone gets a turn & call the cops if it comes to blows.

[Historic NY]

4. They're shills.

[dmallind]

5. No - not about them. Even in formal debate judges are mostly silent. nt

[phleshdef]

6. I think there is a gray area there and it needs to be well balanced.

I'm not sure there is any kind of formula as to when a moderator should do something like that versus when one shouldn't. But if the factual error is big enough, then yea, I think they should. But at the same time, the debate shouldn't be between the moderator and the debaters, it should be between the debaters.

[PRETZEL]

7. I'd have to say no,

there were 8 people on that stage last nite.

Let them fight it out amongst themselves. If they're too stupid to call out each other, well so be it.

[hedgehog]

8. I don't think it would be untoward for the network to provide a fact checking

program immediately after the debate.

[Turbineguy]

9. I don't think so.

People should be encouraged to do their own fact checking. It's a lot more powerful to discover on your own that Perry is a lying sack of shit than to hear it from some talking head like Wolf Blitzer.

[Overseas]

10. I'd like to see live subtitles on the screen as Perry says That Stimulus Didn't Create a Single Job

Stimulus jobs in Texas-- over 20,000. Nationally, 2 million.

or whatever the case may be.

[Daphne08]

11. Wolf Blitzer isn't smart enough to recognize factual errors.

He's not very knowledgeable at all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWs-MFOQWQ

[saras]

12. It depends on whether you want serious debate or WWF wrestling

I don't think it's the moderator's job ALONE. EVERYONE involved in a serious debate has an obligation to ensure that everyone is forming their diverse opinions from the same set of facts. Were the debate refereed, a significant factual error ought to disqualify you.

Personally I find the concepts embedded in ">this flowchart of appropriate debate, from atheismresource.com to be a good set of rules for ANY debate. Any discussion that's not willing to follow this, at least conceptually, is basically bullshit, not legitimate debate.

a sort of summary:

"First, I’ll need you to tell me what could change your mind. If you cannot envision anything that could change your mind, then you’re inviting me to a situation where you expect me to be open to evidence, but are unwilling to play by the same standards yourself. Why should I bother?

Second, if I show that one of your arguments is a bad argument, how will that affect your position? Will you alter your position accordingly or will you maintain the exact same position and just move on to the next argument, and the next, and the next, and so forth? If I show one of your arguments to be faulty, will you stop using it in the future? For instance, if you ask me for a transitional fossil and I rattle off a lengthy list of them, will you try that ploy again with your next target hoping that they don’t have the list at hand, or will you accept that transitional fossils exist and change your mind to incorporate this fact (and correct your Christian colleagues when they make the same bad argument in your presence)? If not, why should I bother with you?

Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved. If you advance a fact and I show that fact to be inaccurate, do not simply throw out another argument as though we are finished. It is important to resolve individual arguments before moving forward.

Also, either provide evidence for your position or against mine. Do not argue for why you shouldn’t have to be reasonable or for why you shouldn’t need to have evidence on your side. Whichever position is more reasonable and has more supporting evidence is the one that should be accepted as true. If you start making excuses for why you don’t have evidence or for why you should maintain your position even though it’s unreasonable (while expecting me to abandon mine if your arguments are better), then any sane human being would perceive that you are not playing fair and that you have conceded any arguments on the table.

You do not get to have it both ways. If you’re unwilling to abide by reason, then your faith is not reasonable; if your faith is a matter of utter certainty, then it has not integrated humility and doubt; and if your position will not change in the face of contradictory evidence, then you are not searching for the truth.

I insist that the conversation be filmed. Afterward, I will post it unedited to my blog. I do this to create accountability. If one of us engages in any of the behaviors I’ve described above, they should lose face. The presence of such a penalty is in place to deter people from ignoring everything I’ve outlined so far and trying to waste my time anyway. I don’t doubt that you’re sincere, but I do doubt that you’re not guilty of confirmation bias.

But corporate media provide entertainment, not debate. So they play by their own rules.

[tsuki]

13. Not if they don't know the difference. It was the Leslie Wolf. nt

[Common Sense Party]

14. No. n/t