this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
588 points (96.1% liked)

News

23305 readers
5390 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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
 

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
[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 260 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 191 points 1 month ago (7 children)

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.

[–] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 103 points 1 month 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.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month 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..."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 11 points 1 month ago

Time concerns aside, this will just make GOP say "they have their own idea of truth". Which is correct but the causality is vice versa.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 107 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 30 points 1 month ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"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 11 points 1 month ago

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

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Maybe their mic should get quieter each time they lie lol

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 103 points 1 month ago

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

Cool. Cool cool cool.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 98 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 66 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

<Walks walks onto stage and goes to shake Vance's hand> "Hey, how was the tour of Ashely Furniture? Sorry I couldn't join you... Did you find any attractive couches?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 57 points 1 month ago (4 children)
[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] irreticent@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DokPsy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

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

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Whatever happened to "criticize?'

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bricklove@midwest.social 10 points 1 month ago

Mysticpickle drops bombshell on journalists. Entire industry collapses!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

"Article title slammed by Feathercrown"

[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

That really ripped me.

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] CatZoomies@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

To slams, you say?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Hook each VP candidate nuts to a car battery and every time they lie hit them with the full voltage.

Simple as.

[–] KaRunChiy@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago (7 children)

too low voltage, recommend 10 batteries in series

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago

Come on and slam! And welcome to the jam!

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 16 points 1 month 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.

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month 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.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 month ago

We're gonna have a proven liar on our network. We're not going to do anything to point that out.

[–] wdx@feddit.org 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Try not to use "Slammed" in Article title challenge (Impossible)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Cowards. Why hold a debate at all if you're gonna be pussies about it?

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Vance will be fact checked way more.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago
load more comments
view more: next ›