this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
529 points (97.7% liked)

News

22869 readers
4158 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I watched ABC FAKE NEWS this morning, both lightweight reporter Jonathan Carl’s(K?) ridiculous and biased interview of Tom Cotton (who was fantastic!), and their so-called Panel of Trump Haters, and I ask, why would I do the Debate against Kamala Harris on that network?

Who's surprised he's trying to chicken out?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 86 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

One of the issues he has is that ABC and the Dems want real time fact checking.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 74 points 3 weeks ago

The nerve! Not allowing him to just stand there and lie without being challenged!

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

How would real-time fact checking even work? Would the moderators actually do their job for once and call it out, or would they just do little VH1/"Pop Up Video"-style graphics where they would highlight whether they would try to correct the record on certain things being said?

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 26 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Here's my proposal.

During each candidate's first turn to speak, no fact checks are shown, but the fact checkers will use the other candidate's turn to come up with corrections. Then when it's the first candidate's turn again, the start of that their speaking time is used to read the corrections from their previous statement. If the corrections take the whole speaking slot, too bad so sad.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

If corrections also rollover into the next speaking window, Donald could just do his first slot and then go golfing.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

That's probably the only way to do a good job of it. Fact checking takes time.

You can't expect it to happen with any level of accuracy if you're demanding it be done before the debater stops talking.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

Either would be better than what's happening now.

[–] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Would the moderators actually do their job for once and call it out

That's actually not the job of moderators. This idea that moderators should do fact-checking only came about in 2016 because of Trump.

The network probably should have a team of fact-checkers. But fact checking in real time isn't easy.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I would like to have the moderators do anything at all, though, that would be nice. Like cut off a candidate who goes over time. Maybe force candidates to answer the question asked or forfeit their time.

[–] III@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I feel like this would be an actually valuable application of AI.

[–] kill_dash_nine@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

The problem with that is that AI itself is unreliable and will be confidently incorrect all the time.

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

Ai uses the internet, right? Especially for current stuff. Could people flood the airways with the information that they prefer and sway the bot?

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

They did it to Romney a bit.

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Hopefully both, and there's a Lie-O-Meter that determines how truthful a statement is as its being read, and then a counter of provably false statements made

Not like a here is a one in a billion outlier so the truth is a lie. If crime is down, but up in a small, specific area, the statement "crime is down" would be true.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It'd be nice if there was some sort of objective, quantitative "score" that could be attached to each candidate's performance (or as objective as it can be). Something at the end of the night you could point to and be like, "Yeah, they're a goddamn liar-mouth." Something either candidate could point to as a "win" without resorting to just soundbites that get blasted the whole week after and people are like, "Oh snap, they said that!" Like, an actual way to tell how honest either candidate seemed during their "performance". I'm sure Trump would lie his ass off and his base would be like, "Well of course ABC is going to say Trump lied, they're owned by woke Disney!", but at the very least we'd have some sort of tracking of how much they lied during a debate.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

There is no objective measurement Repubs won't ignore if it becomes an obstacle to white supremacist fascism and shoveling money into the yachts of the wealthy.