One of the most memorable lines of the vice presidential debate between Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee, and Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican nominee, was not about policy. It was about the debate itself. “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check,” Vance complained.
As I explain in the latest episode of my podcast They Stand Corrected, the media needs to make a decision about what it stands for: spectacles or truth.
Credit: Handout
Credit: Handout
Vance’s complaint came after moderator Margaret Brennan dared to state a fact. “Springfield, Ohio, does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status,” she explained. Why did she feel the need to say this? Because Vance had just tried to link Springfield to the Trump campaign’s favorite issue: illegal immigration. The Trump team has been pushing a dangerous fairy tale about illegal immigrants in Springfield allegedly running amok and eating people’s pets — lies that have led to bomb threats against sites across the city, including schools and homes.
I was not at all surprised that Vance, who attended Yale Law School, knows how to present himself as a polished snake-oil salesman. I also know that a smooth-talking liar is no less dangerous than any other kind. And, to be fair, many other Yale law grads, such as Georgia’s Stacey Abrams, spend their careers trying to do good.
It’s equally unsurprising that people looking for a verbal fistfight were disappointed Walz did not come across as tougher against Vance. But it’s unclear whether that would have helped. With early voting having already started or starting in just days, most Americans don’t know what “undecided” voters are still looking for and which tactics or demeanors might help sway them. If there’s anyone who knows what these voters need to hear, it’s the campaign strategists.
Here’s what’s certain: These lie fests do not serve the public. They hand an advantage to candidates willing to lie more shamelessly and frequently.
Just as he sold out his previous beliefs in order to board the Trump train in a desperate search for power, Vance has learned that in this era, even the most blatant, easily refutable lies can help a candidate win.
Every politician gets some things wrong. But former President Donald Trump has ushered in a new type of lying, one in which people like him and Vance feel free to deny even the most obvious concrete realities. Take Vance saying “I never supported a national ban” on abortion. He is on tape saying he “would like abortion to be illegal nationally.”
Or take Vance’s claim about Trump’s actions on health care while he was in the White House. “I think you can make a really good argument that it salvaged Obamacare, which was doing disastrously until Donald Trump came along,” Vance proclaimed. Trump has long railed against Obamacare, the landmark health care legislation from the Obama administration. In 2016, he campaigned on a promise to destroy it. In his disastrous debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump acknowledged that even after all these years, including four as president, he still doesn’t have a health care plan to offer.
Vance wouldn’t even acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election. He kept alive the “big lie” of the right — the one that fueled the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
As I’ve explained before, debates are arson for truth. In hosting them, news networks give them a sheen of legitimacy. Less knowledgeable viewers are more likely to think they can trust what the candidates are saying. Otherwise, why would journalists be there? And if a moderator fact checks one claim, doesn’t that suggest all the other claims are true?
Yes, fact checks abound the day after. But how many people who heard the lies bother to look into these? At the very least, moderators should state clearly throughout the debate that they are going to fact check every word the candidates say and emphasize the importance of people looking for those fact checks. If they’re going to keep hosting these stunts, they should offer a disclaimer such as, “Because of rules we have agreed to, we are unable to do our job as journalists, which is to ensure that you get the truth. So we’ll set about doing that immediately afterward.”
In an age of “alternative facts,” the public needs trustworthy sources of information. Americans need journalists to fight for them at every opportunity, cut through the noise and provide the two key ingredients of truth: facts plus context.
In the wake of the vice presidential debate, much of the coverage revolved around who “won” based on style, not substance. This is wrongheaded. A candidate who denies basic reality cannot be trusted. That should be the biggest resounding message of the debate — and a central theme of this election.
Josh Levs is host of They Stand Corrected, the podcast and newsletter fact-checking the media. Find him at joshlevs.com.
About the Author
