Tim Scott schools Lester Holt after moderator attempts fact-check.
Liberal Debate Moderators: Same Old Story
Over the years, liberal debate moderators have become more aggressive, but in some ways, they never change. When it comes to basic economics, they remain as illiterate as ever.
During Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate, NBC’s Lester Holt demonstrated this ignorance when he tried to fact-check Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina on the relationship between energy production and fuel prices.
With characteristic politeness, Scott corrected Holt’s correction.
The exchange occurred after Scott discussed Americans’ ability to produce surplus domestic energy for export.
Holt insisted that increased domestic energy production had no immediate effect on fuel prices.
“Let me just follow up. The idea of pumping gas — of turning on pipelines — that doesn’t make gas cheaper that day,” Holt said.
“I’m talking about — you become president — what can you do specifically to help people feel better about their situation, or be better with their situation?”
Scott replied that Holt was mistaken about increased domestic energy production not affecting fuel prices right away.
“Well, actually it does, to be honest with you,” Scott said.
“The way that the economy works is it works on the ability to anticipate excess supply versus the demand. When that happens, confidence drives our prices down, because we know there’s gonna be a greater surplus,” the senator added.
When we hear a sentence begin with the elementary-sounding phrase, “The way that the economy works,” we know that the speaker has addressed this basic explanation either to a child or to a liberal.
In any event, Holt’s failed correction proved useful, for it allowed Scott to hit his stride by touting energy independence.
“As President of the United States, I would lead this nation to making sure that we first use the resources in our own country and not going outside of our country in order to achieve our objectives,” the senator said.
That scenario, of course, sounds a good deal like what former President Donald Trump delivered during his successful administration.
Scott shared a clip of the exchange late Wednesday on his YouTube channel.
Holt’s eagerness to challenge the GOP senator does make one wonder. When exactly did debate moderators begin bandying ideas with candidates?
I do not pretend to know the techniques of an effective moderator. But I do know what sounds off-putting and absurd. It sounds like this:
“Your idea will not work, so let me ask a question that assumes the validity of my own idea.” Holt, in essence, said precisely that.
In a larger sense, that kind of statement also reveals much about the way many modern journalists view their role. The culture of “fact-checking” has produced legions of arrogant scribes who conflate their own half-baked ideas with ”facts.”
Happily, Scott dismissed this particular lame “fact-check” with admirable skill.
The post Tim Scott Gives Lester Holt a Lesson After Moderator Tries to Fact-Check Him appeared first on The Western Journal.
What concerns arise when liberal debate moderators exhibit biased behavior, selectively questioning candidates and interrupting their statements, and how does this affect the integrity of the debate process
“While I appreciate your perspective, I’d like to fact-check you on this point. The evidence suggests that your statement is not entirely accurate.”
When a debate moderator engages in fact-checking during a live debate, it creates an imbalanced dynamic. It gives the impression that the moderator is not neutral and is actively trying to challenge and undermine one side of the debate. This is especially problematic when the moderator’s fact-checking is inaccurate or misinformed, as was the case with Holt’s correction of Scott’s statement on energy production and fuel prices.
Debate moderators have a responsibility to facilitate a fair and balanced discussion. They should ask insightful questions that allow candidates to articulate their positions and challenge each other’s ideas. However, they should not use their position to interject their own biases or inaccurately fact-check the candidates.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen liberal debate moderators exhibit such behavior. In previous debates, we have witnessed moderators giving preferential treatment to certain candidates, selectively asking tough questions to one side while coddling the other, and even interrupting and talking over candidates to prevent them from fully expressing their thoughts.
This pattern of behavior raises questions about the integrity and impartiality of the debate process. It undermines the purpose of a debate, which is to provide voters with an opportunity to hear from the candidates and evaluate their ideas and policies. When moderators are more focused on pushing their own agenda or challenging the candidates, it detracts from the substance and quality of the discussion.
It is essential that debate moderators approach their role with an unbiased mindset and focus on creating an environment that fosters meaningful and respectful debates. They should refrain from fact-checking during the debate itself and instead rely on post-debate fact-checking by journalists and experts. This allows candidates to make their arguments without fear of being immediately challenged and creates a more balanced and informative debate experience for viewers.
The American public deserves fair and impartial debate moderators who prioritize the exchange of ideas over their own personal biases. Only then can we have truly meaningful and productive debates that serve the best interests of the voters and the democratic process.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
