Tuesday's ABC News presidential debate was nothing short of a spectacle, providing a mix of fiery exchanges, biting remarks, and a touch of fact-checking precision that kept the night from spiraling out of control. Whether it was Donald Trump’s zinger, “She is Biden,” or Kamala Harris snapping back with “Vladimir Putin would eat you for lunch,” there were plenty of headline-worthy moments to go around. Yet, amidst all the dramatic sound bites and over-the-top assertions, it was one simple, yet significant, statement that might have been the most important takeaway of the night: “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”
You’d think most people already knew that homicide is illegal everywhere in the United States. The gravity of this statement, however, wasn’t in its content but in its context. Co-moderator and ABC News Live Prime anchor Linsey Davis said this in response to Trump’s persistent and wildly inaccurate claim that Democrats support the execution of babies after live births. This myth, which he has spun time and again, including during his first debate in this election cycle, has been a consistent piece of his rhetorical arsenal. But this time, there was a notable difference in the way the moderators handled such blatant misinformation.
In the earlier debate, Trump had been met with less resistance when he threw out similar falsehoods. CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash faced widespread criticism for allowing these types of inaccuracies to pass without correction. This time around, however, Linsey Davis and her co-moderator, World News Tonight’s David Muir, made it their mission to fact-check on the fly and hold the candidates accountable. Their real-time corrections weren’t flashy or dramatic, but they were crucial in keeping the night grounded in reality.
One of the standout moments from the fact-checking came when Trump began peddling a debunked conspiracy theory about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. He claimed that they were eating pets—“They’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there,” he said with alarming confidence. But Muir was prepared. He had already spoken with Springfield’s city manager, who confirmed that there were “no credible reports” to support this outrageous claim. Muir immediately shared that information with viewers, swiftly shutting down the xenophobic and racist narrative Trump was trying to push.
This wasn’t the only moment Trump found himself fact-checked in real-time. When the former president suggested he was being “sarcastic” in previous remarks where he appeared to admit losing the 2020 election, Muir didn’t let it slide. He calmly reminded Trump that he had reviewed the tapes of those instances and “didn’t detect the sarcasm.” These quick, concise corrections might not have made the most exciting headlines the next day, but they played a vital role in ensuring the debate didn’t become a platform for unchecked falsehoods.
It wasn’t just Trump who faced scrutiny. Kamala Harris, too, found herself needing to clarify several statements she’s made over the years on hot-button issues like fracking and the war in Gaza. The moderators pressed both candidates to reconcile past comments with their current positions, pushing them on topics they might have preferred to dodge. And when Trump tried to deflect a question about whether he regretted his actions on January 6, 2021, Muir was persistent, asking again when Trump initially sidestepped.
Despite the moderators’ best efforts, the debate wasn’t without its hiccups. No live telecast is ever perfect, and this one had its share of flaws. There were moments where Davis and Muir let responses ramble on for too long or indulged in a bit too much cross-talk between Trump and Harris. The power to mute the candidates’ microphones was at their disposal, but at times, it seemed they hesitated to use it when the conversation veered off course.
Still, it’s important not to overlook the crucial role Davis and Muir played in trying to keep the debate as honest as possible. In an age where televised presidential debates can easily devolve into entertainment over substance, the moderators' commitment to fact-checking in real-time and holding both candidates accountable for their words is something that deserves acknowledgment. Sure, it’s their job—but it’s a job that’s often neglected or done half-heartedly, particularly when one candidate has a track record of making false or misleading statements.
If anything, their fact-checking efforts reminded us why these debates matter. They’re not just opportunities for politicians to score points with snappy one-liners or appeal to their base with familiar talking points. These debates are supposed to provide voters with useful information, help them discern the truth from the noise, and ultimately make more informed decisions at the ballot box. Without accountability, these events risk becoming little more than free, prime-time publicity for politicians with questionable records.
Trump’s frequent fabrications about everything from immigration to crime statistics didn’t go unchecked this time around. When he claimed that crime was “through the roof” due to an influx of migrants, Muir swiftly corrected him, pointing to FBI data that suggested otherwise. These sorts of corrections might not always grab headlines, but they’re critical to ensuring that voters aren’t misled by fearmongering or exaggerated claims.
Of course, there’s always room for improvement. The moderators could have been more forceful in keeping the candidates on topic and cutting down on the rambling, especially when answers drifted into tangents or unproductive back-and-forths. But at the end of the day, they did what was needed most: they kept the facts front and center, no matter how much the candidates tried to avoid them.
It’s easy to get swept up in the theatrics of a presidential debate—especially when Trump is on the stage. His larger-than-life persona, coupled with Harris’s sharp wit, made for some unforgettable moments. But beyond the fireworks, the most important takeaway was the effort to bring the debate back to reality, to push back against false narratives, and to provide voters with the facts they need.
In a media landscape where misinformation can spread like wildfire, debates like this one offer a rare opportunity to confront falsehoods in real time. The fact that Davis and Muir took that responsibility seriously is worth celebrating, even if the execution wasn’t perfect. Presidential debates should be more than just viral sound bites and meme fodder—they should serve as tools for the American public to make informed choices. And for the most part, that’s what Tuesday’s debate accomplished.
Login