While I understand moderators are primarily there to ask questions, I wish they more often called out candidates for non-answers/sidestepping/changing subjects. I'd love love love a moderator who holds participants' feet to the fire for us -- we're all sick of political talking points, and they're in a rare position to somewhat force candidates to get off them.
I totally get this, but it would need a completely different setup. It is so frustrating when a question is asked and the debater just talks about whatever they want.
I get that, but if you think about it, in a live, high pressure setting, will the moderator equally question the candidates sidestepping or appear to go after one candidate more than another? If that happens, even if inadvertently, the people who favor that candidate will think the debate was unfair. It's up to the other candidate to point out that the opponent failed to answer or that the answer did not line up with the facts. They get a chance to rebut.
I feel this could be solved with a very simple, deadpan, "You didn't answer the question." Sometimes it helps to point out the obvious.
Or if not the moderators, it'd be great to have the question on the screen and have AI summarize the response in real time and give a score for how on-topic they are. (OR better yet, let's just have an AI moderate 😜😜)
Honestly, I think it would be as or more impactful if the other candidate just called out their opponent in the rebuttal, even with a simple: "you didn't answer the question, so I will" or "that was a lie, here are the facts."
I think if any candidate had the strength to directly address the lies or evasion of their opponent on stage with confidence it would do a lot to win over the audience by demonstrating their strength under pressure and willingness to be upfront/honest.
I don't think I agree. Whenever I hear an adversary "correct" the other I just roll my eyes, because that's what they're going to do no matter what. If Bob makes a claim, and Alice says "What Bob says is wrong," it become a he-said-she-said situation -- Bob voters won't be seated by logic by Alice no matter how right, and regardless of how (in)accurate Alice is in her claim her followers will jump on it as divisive fodder. IMHO, an objective mediator is the only real chance for both sides to actually listen to, digest, and ultimately delineate fact from empty argument.
We kind of got both last night! The candidates and the moderators both did some fact checking last night.
Not surprisingly, the Republican candidate supporters are now saying it was 3 against 1, discrediting the fact checking done by the moderators.
But, I'm curious, how did you feel when the moderators pushed back vs when the candidates pushed back on each other? Was one more effective than the other? Or was it eye rolls all around?
I did find the moderators fact checking to be impactful-- at times kind of threw the candidate off a bit. I also highly valued when the candidates pushed back on one another, because sometimes it exhibited strength and other times it revealed a weakness-- both of which were informative.
I would expect that if a viewer is unwilling to accept reasonable pushback from an opposition candidate, then they likely are unwilling to accept reasonable pushback from a moderator.
When people are unwilling to listen to the other side they tend to be pretty closed off, so I wouldn't suppose they would be open to a moderator unless that moderator was viewed by them to be on the side of "their candidate." And in that case I would expect that even if a moderator was of their "same side" they would be viewed as a traitor for making the candidate look bad.
But those are just my assumptions. 🤷♀️ I wish we could actually test it. But alas! Maybe in future years debates...
Because visual media impacts viewers so much, the day-after fact-check articles have less impact. They are important and necessary but tend to get lost in the next visual hot topic. I’d love to see a debate where the candidates get a segment to go back and forth, cut to a break, then they are faced with real-time ✔️ or ✖️ and given the opportunity to respond more accurately.
YES. No one’s an expert on everything. Voters should get to see the facts of each topic blindly agreeing with a candidate because they made some punchy comments.
I think among other things, what went poorly for Biden in the last debate was his disbelief that a candidate for President could stand on stage and lie so confidently and so much to the public. He wasn't prepared to challenge his opponent.
I would hope that Harris's prep team has fully prepared her for exactly who it is she will be confronting on the debate stage, so that she is ready to call out any moments where her opponent avoids a question or blatantly lies. I don't believe we need moderators to fact check/refocuse the candidates. I believe what we need is a candidate who is able to call out the lies and evasion tactics of their opponent. It would demonstrate confidence and strength.
In other words, we don't need moderators to be the parents in the room, we need a candidate who can be the parent in the room. 😜
If she spends out all her time calling out Trumps lies they won’t be able to say anything else. At the first debate with Biden, Trump answered every single question with something about immigration even the abortion question. The moderators just let him do it. Trump gets a pass on so much. If he shows up in clothes and forms a complete sentence people call that a “win”. Harris will be held to a much higher standard which is very unfortunate. He should be held to the same standard.
I don't think she needs to spend all her time calling him out, a simple "that was a lie" or "you didn't answer the question" would suffice before sharing her own relevant facts or position on the topic.
I agree that her opponent will constantly avoid answering questions and redirect to topics he feels would help him or harm her. But that is why we all need to be paying attention to what he doesn't say and Harris him calling out with "I see you avoided answering this question" or "I guess you don't have a plan for XYZ" and "here's my plan" would be extremely powerful.
As far as standards go for candidates, I think the Republican candidate tends to get a pass because the public is well versed on who he is, especially as he relates to Biden. Perhaps the bar seems higher for Harris because a lot of the public still isn't all that familiar with her, and so they have questions that need answering.
It will be interesting to see if the bar gets raised for her opponent after the debate, once there is a side by side comparison. For instance, will his age come up? Will there be more scrutiny on his inability to finish a thought or complete a coherent sentence? Will there be more attention on how he didn't answer questions, how mich he lied, whether he made racist or sexist remarks? How much of that will be picked up on by the public and the media, and how might that influence a new standard for either candidate?
I disagree that the Republican candidate gets a pass because he’s more well-known.
There’s a new phrase that has started to be utilized - “sanewashing”. Frequently the media sanewashes Trump‘s responses and behavior, making it sound as though he’s “somewhat normal“ when he’s not at all.
Interesting. I'm curious which media are doing that. Is it more right leaning media? Or is it equally being done by more center or left leaning media?
I know I have certainly seen a lot of media talking about his "word salads" and emphasizing that he makes no sense, doesn't answer questions, and can't complete a sentence.
On the other hand, I would expect right-leaning media to be using the "sanewashing" tactic because they want to clean up for their candidate.
Here’s an article on sanewashing. I first saw it via Aaron Rupar, and as mentioned in the article he’s the first one to utilize it in the current context.
Thank you for bringing this all to my attention ‼️Awesome article! I now understand "sanewashing." 👏 It's not just about quoting his incoherent speech, but also properly describing his speech and proportionally covering his dangerous coherent speech.
"To whatever extent journalists show people Trump’s unadulterated speech, it will always be part of our job to describe it. At root, the critics of sanewashing are really just asking the media to 'report accurately on what we’re all seeing in front of us,' as Fattal put it in The Atlantic."
"If sanewashing the incoherent things Trump says is a problem, then so is failing to proportionately cover his all-too-coherent threats."
For examples:
"Trump saying, at a rally, that his failure to win reelection would lead to a 'bloodbath in the country'..."
"Trump said (again at a rally) that removing immigrant gangs from the US would be a “bloody story'..."
"Trump pledge to prosecute those he believes 'cheated' in the coming election."
I've seen this critique leveled at both left-leaning and right-leaning media, though I think the left-leaning ones are bearing the brunt of it: basically people are saying, "Stop 'summarizing' his points and just quote him directly. Instead of summarizing that 'Trump said fixing childcare would not be very expensive' just quote his actual words, because you're depriving voters of vital information about his coherence and state of mind."
Oooooooooo okay, that makes it make sense to me. Thank you!
Now that I understand, I agree that it would be beneficial to quote him vs. summarize his statements.
So is the argument that the media often quotes Harris rather than summarizing, but then summarizes the Republican candidate rather than quoting? Or is the argument more than because he is so incoherent, we generally would prefer that they quote him regardless of how they are reporting on Harris?
I will watch it but I really, really dread these debates and find them quite painful. It is both the deep-cringe folksie narratives along with the vile mean-ness of it all...and, I agree with Danielle, we are sick of the talking points.
It would be hard for moderators to fact check, but it would be great if fact checkers behind the scenes could run the fact checks across the bottom of the screen during the debate
I have consistently watched debates- it’s interesting for historical purposes to me. I watched almost all of the Republican primary debates in 2015 and was horrified by Trump then and even more horrified that the RNC did not put a stop to him. It was clear the GOP was turning away from itself.
I rarely look forward to debates. This one should be very interesting. Once Sharon explained about moderators/fact checking issues, I’m ok with it. At this stage in the game, if we’ve been keeping up with fact checked sources, the lies or semi-truth should be easy to spot. Good luck everyone!
It will be interesting how ‘old’ Trump comes across now that he is the oldest presidential candidate. I will probably fall asleep in the middle like with most things that start at 9!
My Dad asked if I was going to watch tonight, and I had to confess that I am usually in bed by 9pm! The spirit is willing, but the flesh is probably going to be sleepy.
I wish we had fact checking. I don’t have stats memorized! Most Americans don’t. So we need help knowing what’s a political claim and what’s the data says
I never miss a presidential debate. I have taped this one on two stations as I won't be home at the start of the event. I am sorry to be biased. I am all in for Kamala. Too bad my CommaLa shirt will not be received in time to wear it tonight!
While I understand moderators are primarily there to ask questions, I wish they more often called out candidates for non-answers/sidestepping/changing subjects. I'd love love love a moderator who holds participants' feet to the fire for us -- we're all sick of political talking points, and they're in a rare position to somewhat force candidates to get off them.
I totally get this, but it would need a completely different setup. It is so frustrating when a question is asked and the debater just talks about whatever they want.
I get that, but if you think about it, in a live, high pressure setting, will the moderator equally question the candidates sidestepping or appear to go after one candidate more than another? If that happens, even if inadvertently, the people who favor that candidate will think the debate was unfair. It's up to the other candidate to point out that the opponent failed to answer or that the answer did not line up with the facts. They get a chance to rebut.
I feel this could be solved with a very simple, deadpan, "You didn't answer the question." Sometimes it helps to point out the obvious.
Or if not the moderators, it'd be great to have the question on the screen and have AI summarize the response in real time and give a score for how on-topic they are. (OR better yet, let's just have an AI moderate 😜😜)
Honestly, I think it would be as or more impactful if the other candidate just called out their opponent in the rebuttal, even with a simple: "you didn't answer the question, so I will" or "that was a lie, here are the facts."
I think if any candidate had the strength to directly address the lies or evasion of their opponent on stage with confidence it would do a lot to win over the audience by demonstrating their strength under pressure and willingness to be upfront/honest.
I don't think I agree. Whenever I hear an adversary "correct" the other I just roll my eyes, because that's what they're going to do no matter what. If Bob makes a claim, and Alice says "What Bob says is wrong," it become a he-said-she-said situation -- Bob voters won't be seated by logic by Alice no matter how right, and regardless of how (in)accurate Alice is in her claim her followers will jump on it as divisive fodder. IMHO, an objective mediator is the only real chance for both sides to actually listen to, digest, and ultimately delineate fact from empty argument.
We kind of got both last night! The candidates and the moderators both did some fact checking last night.
Not surprisingly, the Republican candidate supporters are now saying it was 3 against 1, discrediting the fact checking done by the moderators.
But, I'm curious, how did you feel when the moderators pushed back vs when the candidates pushed back on each other? Was one more effective than the other? Or was it eye rolls all around?
I did find the moderators fact checking to be impactful-- at times kind of threw the candidate off a bit. I also highly valued when the candidates pushed back on one another, because sometimes it exhibited strength and other times it revealed a weakness-- both of which were informative.
That's an interesting premise.
I would expect that if a viewer is unwilling to accept reasonable pushback from an opposition candidate, then they likely are unwilling to accept reasonable pushback from a moderator.
When people are unwilling to listen to the other side they tend to be pretty closed off, so I wouldn't suppose they would be open to a moderator unless that moderator was viewed by them to be on the side of "their candidate." And in that case I would expect that even if a moderator was of their "same side" they would be viewed as a traitor for making the candidate look bad.
But those are just my assumptions. 🤷♀️ I wish we could actually test it. But alas! Maybe in future years debates...
Maybe we could just inject debaters with truth serum. That'd work, right?
AI would make a mess of it.. it’s not ready for prime time and is already showing bias…
Trump! What is your plan? About anything?
I 100% agree with you!
Hope they both listen to your episode on how to disagree better!
Because visual media impacts viewers so much, the day-after fact-check articles have less impact. They are important and necessary but tend to get lost in the next visual hot topic. I’d love to see a debate where the candidates get a segment to go back and forth, cut to a break, then they are faced with real-time ✔️ or ✖️ and given the opportunity to respond more accurately.
It'd be fun to have a "Pop-Up Video" style debate with fact checking bubbles in real time.
YES. No one’s an expert on everything. Voters should get to see the facts of each topic blindly agreeing with a candidate because they made some punchy comments.
*before* blindly agreeing :)
I have my mind made up between the candidates. Democracy is on the line and I’m voting for Democracy.
Ditto! But I will watch just because I like to see them.
I think among other things, what went poorly for Biden in the last debate was his disbelief that a candidate for President could stand on stage and lie so confidently and so much to the public. He wasn't prepared to challenge his opponent.
I would hope that Harris's prep team has fully prepared her for exactly who it is she will be confronting on the debate stage, so that she is ready to call out any moments where her opponent avoids a question or blatantly lies. I don't believe we need moderators to fact check/refocuse the candidates. I believe what we need is a candidate who is able to call out the lies and evasion tactics of their opponent. It would demonstrate confidence and strength.
In other words, we don't need moderators to be the parents in the room, we need a candidate who can be the parent in the room. 😜
If she spends out all her time calling out Trumps lies they won’t be able to say anything else. At the first debate with Biden, Trump answered every single question with something about immigration even the abortion question. The moderators just let him do it. Trump gets a pass on so much. If he shows up in clothes and forms a complete sentence people call that a “win”. Harris will be held to a much higher standard which is very unfortunate. He should be held to the same standard.
I don't think she needs to spend all her time calling him out, a simple "that was a lie" or "you didn't answer the question" would suffice before sharing her own relevant facts or position on the topic.
I agree that her opponent will constantly avoid answering questions and redirect to topics he feels would help him or harm her. But that is why we all need to be paying attention to what he doesn't say and Harris him calling out with "I see you avoided answering this question" or "I guess you don't have a plan for XYZ" and "here's my plan" would be extremely powerful.
As far as standards go for candidates, I think the Republican candidate tends to get a pass because the public is well versed on who he is, especially as he relates to Biden. Perhaps the bar seems higher for Harris because a lot of the public still isn't all that familiar with her, and so they have questions that need answering.
It will be interesting to see if the bar gets raised for her opponent after the debate, once there is a side by side comparison. For instance, will his age come up? Will there be more scrutiny on his inability to finish a thought or complete a coherent sentence? Will there be more attention on how he didn't answer questions, how mich he lied, whether he made racist or sexist remarks? How much of that will be picked up on by the public and the media, and how might that influence a new standard for either candidate?
I disagree that the Republican candidate gets a pass because he’s more well-known.
There’s a new phrase that has started to be utilized - “sanewashing”. Frequently the media sanewashes Trump‘s responses and behavior, making it sound as though he’s “somewhat normal“ when he’s not at all.
Interesting. I'm curious which media are doing that. Is it more right leaning media? Or is it equally being done by more center or left leaning media?
I know I have certainly seen a lot of media talking about his "word salads" and emphasizing that he makes no sense, doesn't answer questions, and can't complete a sentence.
On the other hand, I would expect right-leaning media to be using the "sanewashing" tactic because they want to clean up for their candidate.
Here’s an article on sanewashing. I first saw it via Aaron Rupar, and as mentioned in the article he’s the first one to utilize it in the current context.
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trump_incoherent_media_sanewashing.php
Thank you for bringing this all to my attention ‼️Awesome article! I now understand "sanewashing." 👏 It's not just about quoting his incoherent speech, but also properly describing his speech and proportionally covering his dangerous coherent speech.
"To whatever extent journalists show people Trump’s unadulterated speech, it will always be part of our job to describe it. At root, the critics of sanewashing are really just asking the media to 'report accurately on what we’re all seeing in front of us,' as Fattal put it in The Atlantic."
"If sanewashing the incoherent things Trump says is a problem, then so is failing to proportionately cover his all-too-coherent threats."
For examples:
"Trump saying, at a rally, that his failure to win reelection would lead to a 'bloodbath in the country'..."
"Trump said (again at a rally) that removing immigrant gangs from the US would be a “bloody story'..."
"Trump pledge to prosecute those he believes 'cheated' in the coming election."
I've seen this critique leveled at both left-leaning and right-leaning media, though I think the left-leaning ones are bearing the brunt of it: basically people are saying, "Stop 'summarizing' his points and just quote him directly. Instead of summarizing that 'Trump said fixing childcare would not be very expensive' just quote his actual words, because you're depriving voters of vital information about his coherence and state of mind."
(full transcript of his childcare answer here: https://www.instagram.com/yasharali/reel/C_jfyN1yzUm/)
Oooooooooo okay, that makes it make sense to me. Thank you!
Now that I understand, I agree that it would be beneficial to quote him vs. summarize his statements.
So is the argument that the media often quotes Harris rather than summarizing, but then summarizes the Republican candidate rather than quoting? Or is the argument more than because he is so incoherent, we generally would prefer that they quote him regardless of how they are reporting on Harris?
I can’t get you a great answer right now, but some media are calling out others. I’ll try to get some clearer info - not tonight though.
Here’s an article on “sanewashing”.
I will watch it but I really, really dread these debates and find them quite painful. It is both the deep-cringe folksie narratives along with the vile mean-ness of it all...and, I agree with Danielle, we are sick of the talking points.
How to be more detached but still listen?
Harris’s acumen as a prosecutor is showing and I am here for it!
It would be hard for moderators to fact check, but it would be great if fact checkers behind the scenes could run the fact checks across the bottom of the screen during the debate
This should be a doozy… I’ll watch but may have to distract myself from time to time.
So far, Harris is winning this debate hands down.
I have consistently watched debates- it’s interesting for historical purposes to me. I watched almost all of the Republican primary debates in 2015 and was horrified by Trump then and even more horrified that the RNC did not put a stop to him. It was clear the GOP was turning away from itself.
I rarely look forward to debates. This one should be very interesting. Once Sharon explained about moderators/fact checking issues, I’m ok with it. At this stage in the game, if we’ve been keeping up with fact checked sources, the lies or semi-truth should be easy to spot. Good luck everyone!
Harris is bringing the heat! Trump is bringing the fear with fabrications. I'm enjoying this.
Yes, he is flailing.
It will be interesting how ‘old’ Trump comes across now that he is the oldest presidential candidate. I will probably fall asleep in the middle like with most things that start at 9!
My Dad asked if I was going to watch tonight, and I had to confess that I am usually in bed by 9pm! The spirit is willing, but the flesh is probably going to be sleepy.
I asked my mom if she was going to watch and she said "umm right at bedtime???"
I wish we had fact checking. I don’t have stats memorized! Most Americans don’t. So we need help knowing what’s a political claim and what’s the data says
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/live-fact-check-trump-and-harris-meet-for-presidential-debate
I never miss a presidential debate. I have taped this one on two stations as I won't be home at the start of the event. I am sorry to be biased. I am all in for Kamala. Too bad my CommaLa shirt will not be received in time to wear it tonight!
I’m lucky; I’ll be wearing mine!