Should there be live fact-checkers at presidential debates?

Politicians lie. They embellish their resumes, cherry-pick data, and distort the truth like it’s their job—because, in many ways, it is. Politicians will say whatever earns them the most applause, retweets, and, most importantly, votes. From unintentional exaggerations to outright fabrications, misleading statements have long been at the heart of political discourse, and social media has made it even easier for misinformation to spread faster than ever before. According to a 2020 study conducted by MIT, false news stories are 70% more likely to be retweeted than the truth. As a result, voters are left struggling to discern between fact and fiction. This widespread lack of transparency poses an existential threat to the integrity of the democratic values our nation holds dear.

A healthy democracy relies on a well-informed electorate. In his Farewell Address, George Washington urged the new nation to create and nurture “institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge” in ways that would secure an “enlightened” public. Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that in a republic where the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, the ability of the electorate to make informed choices among candidates is of utmost importance. As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people. ” Hence, building a well-informed electorate is essential to a constitutional democracy.

However, these ideals often are swept under the rug the moment presidential candidates hit the debate stage. Presidential debates are supposed to serve two key purposes: allowing candidates to explain their policy positions and challenge their opponents’ ideas. But both functions depend on one thing—truth. In a perfect world, we’d have candidates who speak only the truth and respectfully exchange well-researched ideas. But, in reality, presidential debates have strayed from their purpose, becoming platforms for candidates to push their own agendas without any regard for the truth. As a result, voters are not just poorly informed but also horribly misinformed.

There is a simple remedy to this growing problem: fact-checking. Fact-checkers are moderators who, at set intervals throughout a debate, can momentarily pause their questioning to correct falsified information. Since debates fail to provide sufficient opportunities for candidates to correct themselves and each other, it is crucial to incorporate live fact-checking into our debate protocols to promote an informed citizenry and preserve our democracy.

Having fact-checkers present will, in and of itself, lower the likelihood that politicians will slip up. Politicians often draw conclusive opinions without backing them up with evidence. If they know they’ll be challenged, they’ll either refrain from making misleading claims or be forced to substantiate them. By incorporating real-time fact-checking into debates, we would discourage candidates from lying and set the record straight immediately. The two will work hand in hand. As former President Barack Obama put it, “A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.”

There is clearly a right and wrong way to approach fact-checking. More often than not, critics of fact-checking object not to fact-checking itself but rather to how it’s executed. Hence, the real question should not be whether fact-checking is necessary, but how can we ensure it is done properly? For one, beyond their role as moderators, fact-checkers are journalists with a responsibility to uphold the truth. That means they must double-check everything and know their facts cold. In addition, it is important for fact-checkers to stay impartial and apply the same level of scrutiny to all candidates. Someone who denounces only one side is not a fact-checker but rather a tool in a political campaign. Everybody lies, and fact-checking should reflect that. But it is important to note that fact-checking should also not be applied haphazardly. Instead of butting in to clear up minor discrepancies—like whether unemployment was 10% or 12% in 2018—fact-checkers should focus on pointing out more egregious distortions. This would ensure that the fact-checking process is not nitpicky. Moreover, when done right, fact-checking should not derail the flow of debates. Fact-checkers do not need to give lengthy, drawn-out explanations whenever a candidate distorts the truth. Fact-checkers do not need to be pedants. The purpose of their interjections is not to have their ‘gotcha’ moment in the spotlight. Rather, they can deliver quick, concise corrections necessary only to ground the conversation. They exist only to serve the American public.

This is not a Republican or Democrat problem. It is a truth problem, and a truth problem requires a truth solution. We live at a time when over 70% of Americans don’t trust the government to do the right thing. We need transparency now more than ever. Live fact-checking during debates is the most effective way to combat misinformation, hold politicians accountable, and restore overall trust in the electoral process.