Fact Checking the Debates

I'm sorry for those who know about this already, but I just learned of this today. The New York Times blog does fact checking on the debates, taking the claims and statements made by the candidates and giving the "real" story. The one on the vice presidential debate is quite illuminating, and reveals some fudginess on both sides.

I almost didn't watch the debate, because after watching Sarah Palin during her interviews, and having watched Joe Biden for years, I thought I would just be cringing for 90 minutes (a sparring match between Miss "I can see Russia" and the guy who called his own running mate the first "clean" African American candidate? Oy.).  But, I couldn't help myself and I tuned in (with a drink in hand).  I actually thought the vice presidential debate was more watchable than the first presidential debate, which I found frustrating and completely non-substantive.  But maybe I'm just getting worn down (or maybe it was that drink...).  I did learn a few things, like about how close the two campaigns are in their views on civil rights for gay folks (surprise first, then sigh).

But overall, I find the whole debate format bizarre and somewhat useless. The lack of follow up questions and any semblance of an aggressive moderator makes much of the "debate" a 90 minute infomercial.  I'm not sure how to fix this, since I gather that much of what frustrates me is agreed to beforehand and is the only way the candidates will subject themselves to a debate. The lack of follow up questions drives me nuts -- I find myself desperately wanting to subject both candidates to a deposition by a NY litigator.  But the candidates are (apparently) able to pressure the press, because the press wants the access, and so the press accedes to these bizarre rules about what can be asked and how.

Kvetching aside, check out the Times fact checking site if you haven't already. I know that a few times last night I found myself thinking, well, hmmm, I did not know that! I'm glad I watched this! At least I learned something! Well, it turns out, there's a reason I didn't know these things, and it isn't because I can't name one newspaper that I read.  But I'll still probably watch the next debate...I'll just check the NY Times fact checking site the next day and straighten myself out.

Comments

[Vanceone]

While you are looking at factchecking, you might want to check out more than just the Obama press operation known as the NYT.

For instance, the NYT utterly fails to mention the following Biden falsehoods:

The constitutional role of the VP (This is astonishing--Biden teaches con law, and he is flat out wrong on this). Biden, the VP is actually president of the Senate all the time, not just part time.

NATO never forced out Hezbollah from Lebanon. For the chair of the foreign relations committee, this is simply inexcusable. Does Biden know anything about the world at all?

And that is not all, but the NYT can't bring themselves to admit these ones. So find some source that doesn't need a rope to pull out because they are so deep in the tank for Obama.