Why not have a panel of fact checkers standing by to correct them on their points? This election has been which candidate can make their lie sound most like the truth. Dem lie about this, so GOP counters with a lie about that. Obama makes up a statistic, Romney makes up a study. Biden makes up a GOP position.... All theyre doing is lying. I really dont think that is beneficial for anyone.
How would you pick the fact checkers? Obviously the channel broadcasting the debate would refuse to allow anyone but their own in-house news team to do it, and if it were on any network but Fox, conservatives would pitch a fit. If it were on Fox, liberals would scream bloody murder. Heck, the two parties distort the facts so much they completely discredit and disregard the Congressional Budget Office's studies, an agency specifically designed to be non-partisan. Are we going to set it up like Family Feud, with an unseen judges' panel and a buzzer for lies? Because how is that going to stop two of the most charismatic people in the entire human population from simply talking right over them?
If we had a fact checker present for Romney, Obama wouldn't even have a chance to speak. The whole debate would be clogged with clarification of Romney's fabrications.
Regarding fact checking: Politifact is great for fact-checking. In my opinion they are pretty non-biased, or at least as close to non-biased as you can realistically get.
First we'd have to agree on what a fact is because many conservatives have gone so far to the right they now live in an alternate reality universe.
So-called Facts are normally not black and white, and they all depend on how you present them. Half truth is sometimes more dangerous and harmful than plain lies. Politicians hide part of the whole truth, twist occurrences, and take words or facts out of context, that's what they do masterfully. Let's not just blame politicians and media, because we welcome biased news coverage, as long as it fits our interest or opinion. Nowadays, perception is reality. Don't many Americans still "believe" there are WMD in Iraq?
pronouncing one's self the arbiter of truth is ridiculous Especially if the organization refuses to reveal the partisan leanings of the people doing the fact checking.
People doing fact checking can have any number of political leanings. That doesn't mean it will affect their ability to check facts. A reporter who votes from Democrats can still be a professional and write a piece that criticizes Obama. A reporter that votes Republican can still be a professional and write a piece critical of Romney.
In theory this is true. In practice, human nature kicks in, especially in what one chooses to cover/not cover or fact check. It's about transparency. A reporter that doesn't reveal their political leanings still has them. A viewer should know from what perspective the person presenting facts is coming from. For example, I would bet $1,000 every single debate moderator votes Democratic.
Telling the truth to counter the lies of another person is not some sort of grand pronouncement. There actually IS a truth for many of these issues. It's been buried, smeared, disguised, denied, and mocked, but that doesn't mean it isn't the truth. I don't think this idea could work though - the process of checking a statement for its factual accuracy takes infinitely more time than it does to tell a lie. We'll have to be satisfied with fact-checking that comes on the next day. Unfortunately, the supposition behind this statement is that everyone is on some partisan side. This, as I've said a million times before, seems to be a particular issue with conservatives. Meaning: I find most conservative talking points ridiculous and immune to rationality, but that doesn't automatically make me a liberal. I believe we've discussed this before. The point: Insisting on having a fact-checker disclose their 'partisan bias' assumes that they have one in the first place.
Politicians by nature are immensely charismatic people; only someone with a tremendous personality and ability to connect with others could possibly get the nomination for president. While it's incredibly easy to see a candidate as out-of-touch and wooden from afar, spend 5 minutes with them on a personal level, and I guarantee you'd come away thinking they were incredible human beings.
The supposition is that viewers should have the information to decide that for themselves. Because most journalists vote Democrat. Right, but if you were hired as a fact checker of an irrational ideology, shouldn't people know you come at your job from that perspective? everyone has beliefs, and those beliefs influence perception and behavior
Maybe it's because journalists, by nature, have to be informed about the topics they cover? As it stands right now, being informed is not at the top of the priority list for Republicans.
