Why Debate ‘Moderators’ Prove That The Media Is The True Enemy Of The American People

For all the differences between the presidential and vice presidential debates, there was one glaring similarity: the moderators weren’t able to keep their mouths shut. In the first debate, the rules allowed the moderators to “fact-check,” whatever that means exactly. In the second debate, the rules didn’t allow “fact-checking.” But in both cases, the moderators couldn’t help themselves. They weighed in, over and over again. And every single time, they interjected to help whatever Democrat was standing at the podium. And the format of these “fact-checks” was always the same, too. The moderators would wait for Donald Trump or JD Vance to stop speaking. Then they’d hastily recite a rehearsed, one-line “correction.” And then they’d immediately try to change the subject so that Trump or Vance couldn’t respond.

This would be disgraceful even if these moderators were telling the truth. The whole point of a debate is to hear from the candidates, not the moderators. But even if you disagree on that point — even if you think it’s good for the moderators to intervene when they think a candidate is lying — it’s still not clear why they would refuse to let the candidates respond to their “fact checks.” This wasn’t an accident; it was how they approached every single one of these fact checks, across two debates and two sets of moderators. And it’s worth figuring out why that is.

It could be that many on the Left don’t engage in any kind of critical thought anymore. They just look at the consensus view — as reflected by the “fact check” — and declare no further questioning is allowed. They genuinely can’t conceive of a situation in which the consensus might be mistaken. On the other hand, it could also be that, in this context, the moderators realized their “fact-checks” would fall apart under any form of scrutiny. And indeed, with every day that passes, that’s exactly what’s happening. One by one, every single one of these “fact-checks” from these two debates is collapsing.

These are not small errors I’m referring to. Take for example this moment from the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Trump was asked about his position on abortion, and he gave a long answer. And then the moderator, Linsey Davis, fired off a one-line fact-check before pivoting immediately to Kamala Harris. Watch:

At the time, a lot of people pointed out the obvious problem with this fact-check. Donald Trump never actually said that it was legal to kill babies after they were born. But he did say it was happening. And he cited a very specific and well-known piece of evidence: The former governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, strongly suggested to a radio show in 2019 that in certain cases, such as “fetal abnormalities,” his bill would allow doctors to kill children after they’re born:

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Defenders of Ralph Northam recognized how demonic this quote is. So for the past several years, they have insisted that he wasn’t talking about euthanizing children who survived failed abortions. And they claimed the governor wasn’t actually talking about allowing newborn infants to die for no medical reason, either. Presumably, that’s the spin Linsey Davis had in mind when she corrected Donald Trump during this debate. She declared, with authority, that there is “no state” in the entire country where it’s legal to kill children after they’re born.

What was missing from her fact check is what John Solomon at Just The News has now proven — which is that children are being born alive in this country, and then doctors are allowing them to die without even attempting any life-saving intervention. It turns out that, until 2023, the state of Minnesota kept records on how many infants were born alive during failed abortions. Those records showed that from 2019 to 2021 — during Tim Walz’s tenure as governor — at least eight infants were born alive following a botched abortion. Not a single one of these infants received “life-saving care.” Two infants in 2021 received “comfort care.” All eight of the children died.

None of the doctors involved were ever investigated or charged for any of this — even though, at the time, Minnesota law required, “responsible medical personnel” to use “[a]ll reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.”

But just to cover his bases, Tim Walz changed the law in 2023. Now the law doesn’t require lifesaving measures at all for infants who survive abortions. Instead it requires that doctors “care for the infant who is born alive,” without specifying exactly what that care entails. The law also gets rid of the reporting requirement for the state health agency, so no one can learn how many children are being killed — or allowed to die — after they’re born.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

If you look at the records Solomon found, you can see why Democrats might want to cover them up. They’re as ghoulish as you can imagine. Here’s the July 2020 report from Minnesota, for example.

In one instance, fetal anomalies were reported but residual cardiac activity was present at 2 minutes. Care of fetus was transferred to the second medical doctor. No measures taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did not survive. … In one instance, comfort care measures were provided as planned and the infant did not survive. … In one instance, the infant was pre-viable. No measures taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did not survive.

Notice the report doesn’t even bother to clarify whether lifesaving measures could have saved some of these infants. That’s not a piece of information the health department decided to track, for some reason. But the report is very clear on the fact that children who survived abortions were consistently allowed to die in the state of Minnesota without any attempt by a doctor to save them. “No measures taken to preserve life” is a consistent theme here. You don’t get any more information than that. And rather than provide any more transparency on this point, the state, under Tim Walz, has gone ahead and shut down record-keeping entirely.

The Dispatch looked into this reporting, and they confirmed it’s all accurate.

[Charlie] Kirk and Solomon’s claims are correct. Minnesota Department of Health documents show that eight infants were born alive during abortion procedures between 2019 and 2022, and, in 2023, Walz signed legislation that repealed most of a statute designed to protect infants born alive after an abortion attempt.

So the truth is that Linsey Davis either has no idea what she was talking about, or she was deliberately lying. Either way, it’s beyond reprehensible that no mainstream media organization in this country has bothered to do any investigative reporting on this topic. Apparently, only John Solomon is interested in the question of whether or not children are being systematically killed — or “allowed to die” — after they’re born. The most we can expect from ABC is a drive-by “fact-check” during a presidential debate with a lot of snark and no substance whatsoever.

To get a sense of how big the problem is, I went back and looked at every single fact-check from these two debates. And every single one of them was either obviously false or extremely misleading. I already covered the FBI’s crime numbers, which supposedly show that violent crime is down. The moderator, David Muir, cited those statistics in his “fact-check” without providing any context — including the missing law enforcement agencies who didn’t report data, or the DOJ’s report showing that crime has actually surged under the Biden-Harris administration. Then there was his claim that “no credible reports” indicated animals were being eaten in Springfield. Watch:

So the city manager says it’s not “credible” to suggest that domesticated animals are being killed in the “migrant community.” And the moderator and Kamala Harris mock Donald Trump for saying he saw those reports on television. It turns out that, back in March, the Springfield city manager himself did say that there were “quite a few” credible reports of “horrid things” happening to domesticated animals in Haitian communities in the town. Watch:

Springfield City Manager back in March: I have heard residents complaining about Haitians eating the town animals.

Would be a shame if we tagged @ABC.

pic.twitter.com/dxiQyGwScH

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 17, 2024

So that’s another fact-check that was just a complete lie. And actually, Trump called it out in real-time. He said the city manager was probably just trying to give a political answer when ABC News called. And that’s exactly what was happening.

Let’s go down the list. There was also this fact-check from the other day:

This was another drive-by fact-check that the candidates weren’t allowed to respond to. And it’s also completely false, as I’ve outlined many times before.

Here’s how Chris Martz — the same meteorology student I mentioned the other day — responded to this particular fact-check. 

There is absolutely zero evidence that climate change makes hurricanes larger in size (i.e., diameter). There is little evidence that hurricanes are becoming stronger. The number of category 3-5 hurricanes globally exhibit no statistically significant trend since 1980. This is backed by peer-reviewed research. … There is no evidence that hurricanes are becoming deadlier because of better warning coordination. Deaths are down [by more than] 75% since 1900 because of that.

Chris Martz, again, is a meteorology student. And he knows enough to check the actual data before he makes wildly false claims about what “scientists say.” So what exactly is the excuse of a major media organization for doing this, in front of 40 million people?

Whatever that excuse is, they’re still doing it, long after the debate is over. Around midnight, CBS News posted this:

During the vice presidential debate, Senator JD Vance claimed Vice President Harris “became the appointed border czar.” CBS News Confirmed rates this as false. Here’s why. https://t.co/Nz888H6x8i pic.twitter.com/qzJbHC4s3F

— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 2, 2024

The fact-check claims that Harris was just assigned to investigate the “root causes” of migration, rather than to oversee enforcement of the law. But if you pull up articles from CBS’ own website, you’ll find out very quickly that they’re lying. Here’s an article from 2021, for example.

Harris to lead administration’s efforts to stem migration at border … President Biden announced Wednesday he had tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the administration’s efforts to stem migration at the southern border.

At this point, I’m honestly looking for a single “fact-check” that pans out. From what I can tell, none of them have any validity whatsoever. It’s actually kind of incredible. And of course, there was no fact-check that was more incredible than this one, which I highlighted the other day:

BREAKING: The CBS Moderators just tried to "Fact-Check" JD Vance, but he stopped them in their tracks and FACT-CHECKED them instead. They then proceeded to mute his mic

THESE PEOPLE ARE DISGUSTING. pic.twitter.com/thdFNAfXA0

— George (@BehizyTweets) October 2, 2024

This was egregious for all of the reasons that I’ve shown you. Yes, the moderators decided to break the rules to enter the debate on behalf of Kamala Harris. Yes, JD Vance was right that, to the extent these tens of thousands of Haitians are “legally” in the country, it’s only because the federal government has decided to bend the rules and award them mass amnesty. And yes, it’s comical that the moderator doesn’t fact-check Tim Walz’s claim that this has been going on, to the same extent, since the 90s.

But in retrospect, you can kind of see why the moderators decided to cut the microphones. After all, every single one of their fact-checks up to this point had been wrong. Some of them were called out in real-time, while others fell apart immediately on social media. And now, after all of that, they realized that yet another one of their fact-checks was blowing up in their faces. So they pressed the panic button.

At this point, the only viable solution is to eliminate moderators from future debates entirely. They’ve inserted themselves repeatedly into the discussion, only to spread falsehoods and confuse the issues. And they haven’t been wrong about insignificant topics, either. They’ve been wrong about whether illegal aliens are killing animals. They’ve been wrong about how many Americans are being victimized every year by violent criminals. And they’ve been wrong about whether children are being allowed to die after they’re born. These “mistakes” only go in one direction for a reason, which is that they’re not mistakes at all. The truth is that there are very powerful forces in this country that want to enable these atrocities. And after these moderators are all discarded along with their useless “fact-checks,” we need to make sure those ghouls never hold power again.