Let’s Talk About the Real MVP of the Presidential Debate

The September 10th Presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and Former President Donald Trump was, well, a lot. The 90-minute debate, moderated by ABC News’s David Muir and Linsey Davis, was held at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. It was the country’s first opportunity to compare both candidates’ policies, plans, and visions for our country side-by-side.

Many of us thought we knew how this debate would go. We thought we would witness the Former President engaging in his signature abrasive yet effective tactics that we witnessed in previous debates. We thought we would witness Vice President Harris be sharp but warm, exacting yet joyful, using her skills as an attorney to litigate her case to be the next President of the United States. To an extent, we did see those things.

But in this debate, we did not learn much. We heard Harris defend her stance on fracking, saying "I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as vice president United States, and in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act which opened new leases for fracking."

From Former President Trump, we heard that he believes that immigrant communities are feasting on citizens’ pets, saying "In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there." We also heard that he believes that ninth-month abortions, saying "You could do abortions in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month, and probably after birth."

So, while some questionable, concerning, and at times confusing statements were made, nothing new was learned during the debate from the candidates. But what did we see?

The major thing we learned from the debate was the importance of skilled moderators and their choice to fact-check. In previous interviews with various press, particularly with the Former President, we watched, many of us distressingly, as journalists and media would either gloss over blatant lies and dangerous rhetoric or not address them at all.

That was not the case for this debate. Both Trump and Harris were fact-checked live with some outlets saying that Trump made false statements thirty-three times as opposed to Harris’s one false statement.

Addressing Trump’s claims that a former West Virginia governor was in favor of the legal "execution" of infants after birth and that Tim Walz, the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, said "execution after birth is OK, " Linsey Davis fact-checked Trump, saying "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born."

After his comments about immigrant communities eating citizens’ pets, ​​David Muir fact-checked Trump, saying "I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio, and ABC News did contact the city manager there. He told us they had no credible reports of pets or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals in the immigrant community."

Muir again fact-checked Trump after the former President falsely claimed that crime rates “are through the roof" in the United States, but down across the globe. "President Trump,” Muir said, “As you know, the FBI says that overall violent crime is actually coming down in this country.

Davis called for clarity on Harris’s stance on fracking. “I know you say that your values have not changed,” said Davis, “so then why have so many of your policy positions changed?". This forced the Vice President to clarify her muddled stance on the issue.

After an exchange about the 2020 election where Trump still contends there was widespread election fraud, Muir again fact-checked Trump, saying "We should just point out here as clarification…60 cases in front of many judges, many of them Republican, looked at it and said there was no widespread fraud."

Fact-checking emerged as the major victory of this debate. Seeing this approach to the debate was refreshing and reassuring.

After previous interviews, discussions, and even the June debate between President Biden and Trump, the number of inaccuracies, false statements, and outright lies allowed to go unchecked was distressing. By allowing these comments to go unchecked at the moment, journalists and moderators allowed such falsehoods and inaccuracies air to breathe, to grow, and to thrive in damaging and dangerous ways. In the ongoing battle against misinformation and disinformation, allowing falsehoods and lies to go unaddressed from the top governing position can be not just detrimental, it can be deadly.

Fact-checking in the moment made room for the facts over falsehoods. It laid bare false statements for what they were without the need for a later show or article to dispel them. It steals from these falsehoods the air to breathe and breed while also forcing the person making these false claims to face those facts.

In my opinion, the moderators were the real winners of the debate. My hope is that we see more of this courageous journalism, not just during election season, but across the board. In a time when disinformation infests and persists, the only remedy is the facts.