The Flawed Approach to Fact-Checking in the 2020 Presidential Debate

The 2020 presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was rife with falsehoods and misleading statements. While fact-checkers were present at the scene, their approach was heavily criticized for its bias and selective truthfulness.

The Republican Perspective on Facts

For many Republicans, facts hold a perilous position akin to peanut butter to someone with a severe allergy. The very thought of exposing Republicans to facts is seen as inconsiderate and, for the die-hard supporters, criminal. This attitude reinforces the idea that truth is often disregarded in political discourse.

Bias in Fact-Checking: A Two-Way Street

The problem with fact-checking during the debate lies not only in its selective implementation but also in its imbalanced nature. Fact-checkers were not equally vigilant in scrutinizing both candidates. Kamala Harris made numerous unsubstantiated claims with no challenge from the obviously biased "moderators."

Missing Fact-Checking Opportunities

Consider this: during the first moments of the debate, Kamala Harris erroneously stated that she was the only person on stage who grew up in the United States as part of the middle class. However, her background does not match this claim. She was born in Canada, and her parents were both upper-middle class, not from the middle class.

This example opens the door to several questions: Why wasn't this fact checked in real-time? Why were similar gaffes by Donald Trump later confronted while Harris's were largely overlooked?

The Role of the Moderator

The moderators played a crucial role in setting the tone for the debate. According to the fact-checker's preparation, they had a list of misstatements that each candidate might use. For instance, when confronted about her fracking statements, the moderators were prepared with questions, indicating pre-planning.

The issue here is not the preparation but the selective nature of fact-checking. While Trump was fact-checked on repeated misinformation, Harris's clear falsehoods were largely ignored. This selective fact-checking can be seen as biased and polarizing.

Eligibility for Fact-Checking

Any candidate who participates in a debate should be held to the same standard. An honest politician should be open to fact-checking and not resist it. Refusal to accept fact-checking can be seen as a tacit admission of untruthfulness.

Conclusion

The ultimate takeaway from the 2020 debate is that a fair and balanced fact-checking process is essential. Both candidates should be subjected to the same scrutiny. Otherwise, the integrity of the debate is compromised, leading to an unfair advantage for one candidate over the other.

As more debates come to light, it is crucial for fact-checkers to remain impartial and ensure that truth and accuracy are upheld. The public deserves nothing less during such high-stakes political moments.