In a move likely to stir controversy, CBS News has announced that its moderators will take a backseat during the upcoming vice presidential debate between conservative firebrand JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz. The network’s decision to let the candidates handle their own fact-checking has raised eyebrows, particularly after recent debates have been marked by accusations of blatant bias from left-leaning moderators.
The debate, set for next Tuesday at 9 p.m. Eastern, will be moderated by CBS anchors Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan. But instead of correcting misleading statements or outright falsehoods, the moderators will merely “facilitate” opportunities for rebuttals, leaving Vance and Walz to call out each other’s inaccuracies.
This is a stark departure from the contentious ABC debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, where moderators were quick to pounce on Trump while giving Harris a free pass. In that debate, Trump’s statements on key issues like abortion and immigration were interrupted and “corrected” multiple times, while Harris went unchecked—a fact that infuriated conservatives who saw it as yet another example of mainstream media’s bias against their candidate.
The CBS approach also contrasts with CNN’s more neutral handling of an earlier debate between President Joe Biden and Trump, where no real-time fact-checking occurred. Still, Biden’s faltering performance contributed to his decision to exit the race shortly after, proving that when left to their own devices, candidates can rise or fall based on their own merits.
By deciding to sideline fact-checking during the debate, CBS is effectively washing its hands of any controversy. Their “CBS News Confirmed” misinformation unit will only provide fact-checks after the fact, via a live blog and post-debate analysis. But as many critics have pointed out, off-stage fact-checking is often too little, too late, and doesn’t reach the audience tuning in for the live showdown.
Angie Drodnic Holan from the Poynter Institute, a left-leaning organization known for its “fact-checking” initiatives, has criticized the move, saying it shifts journalistic responsibility to the candidates themselves. She called it a missed opportunity for the moderators to hold the candidates accountable in real time. But many conservatives argue that this “journalistic responsibility” is just another term for media manipulation, where moderators use fact-checks as a weapon against GOP candidates.
The stakes are high for CBS News, which has long lagged behind in the evening news ratings. With O’Donnell stepping down as anchor and Brennan being hailed as a rising star, the network is likely hoping for a ratings boost. But if the debate is anything like the last one between Trump and Harris, CBS may find itself at the center of a media firestorm.
Unlike the presidential debates, where candidates’ microphones were cut off to prevent interruptions, this vice presidential face-off will feature open mics throughout the discussion, allowing for more back-and-forth exchanges. CBS has reserved the right to cut off a “hot mic” if necessary, but the stage is set for a more dynamic—and potentially chaotic—debate. This could work to Vance’s advantage, as the Ohio senator has a reputation for his sharp, direct style, which could leave Walz stumbling if he isn’t prepared for a real-time challenge.
Interestingly, CBS is allowing other networks to broadcast the debate, further increasing the visibility of this crucial moment in the campaign. However, with no live audience present and the debate taking place in a studio once used for children’s programming, it’s clear that CBS wants to control the atmosphere as much as possible.
As election day draws closer, this debate will be a critical moment for both candidates, and perhaps an even bigger test for CBS. The network is trying to walk a fine line between appeasing its liberal base and not alienating the conservative voters who are fed up with media bias. Whether CBS succeeds or fumbles could have lasting effects on the media landscape—and, more importantly, on the outcome of this fiercely contested election.
