Truth or consequences in the presidential debates: There are limits to free speech 

Three weeks before the first “say-it-to-my-face” presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, it is not clear what the rules of engagement will be. However, one thing should not be negotiable: ABC should not allow either candidate to make free use of the public airwaves to lie to the American people. 

By “either candidate,” I mean Trump, of course. Neither candidate should be careless with facts. It indicates they are either uninformed, reckless or want to deceive and manipulate audiences. None are desirable traits. 

But Trump is a special case. With his domination of news cycles for nearly a decade, he has trafficked misinformation, disinformation, unfounded conspiracy theories, malicious invective, veiled threats of violence and character assassination, using cable and network news as his free megaphone. 

In an earlier time, truth had value. Voters and the news media would have driven a pathological and unrepentant liar out of politics. But Trump’s loyalists eat up whatever he dishes, and there are enough of them for Trump to remain a viable candidate for the highest office in the land. 

So, instead of enforcing accuracy standards, the news media resorted to keeping tallies.

During Trump’s time in the White House, the Washington Post counted 30,573 “false or misleading claims” — an average of 21 a day. 

CNN documented 30 “false claims” by Trump after his June 27 debate with President Biden. But the network didn’t report them until close to midnight, when most debate-watchers were no longer watching.

NPR counted 162 “lies and distortions” during the former president’s Aug. 8 news conference. It did an admirable job correcting every one of them, but not until three days later. After Trump’s most recent “news” event at Mar-a-Largo, an MSNBC analyst simply said, “Whatever that was,” Trump unleashed a “firehose of lies.”  

Columnist Walter Shapiro and MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell suggest that the networks fact-check in real time with “crawls,” the messages that travel across the TV screen like ticker tapes. However, as American University journalism professor Jane Hall points out, “There is a very real question of whether it is possible to fact-check Donate Trump live on television. He has confounded many different formats.” Shapiro acknowledges the networks end up like street cleaners “sweeping up the debris after a debate.” 

ABC has an opportunity in the Sept. 10 debate to demonstrate how news outlets can do better at holding candidates accountable for accuracy and truthfulness. 

Perhaps moderators should frame their questions with facts rather than allowing candidates to make them up. Questions should also minimize wiggle room. For example: “Mr. Trump, you’ve said that illegal immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country.’ We are a racially and ethnically diverse nation. What blood are you referring to? Black blood, Hispanic blood, Asian blood? Are you referring to Native American blood or the blood of Metis Americans, Louisiana Creoles, Hapas, Melungeons, Yupiks, Inuits, and Native Hawaiians of Polynesian heritage? Do you consider the racially mixed blood of one in 10 Americans today to be poisoned already? Can you be more specific, sir?” 

Another example: “Mr. Trump, you continue claiming that immigrants are drug runners, rapists, criminals, and mentally unbalanced people who come to America to take jobs away from citizens. However, the Brennan Center for Justice and the conservative Cato Institute report that immigrants have lower crime rates and are 33 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. 

Cato notes that immigrants do not take jobs away from Americans, increase the risk of terrorism in the United States, or undermine our culture. Other research shows immigrants paid $535 billion in taxes and added $1.4 trillion to the economy in 2022. As a percentage of our population, the number of immigrants coming to the United States is lower than that in most wealthy nations. Why are you exaggerating, sir?” 

Or, “Mr. Trump, the United States has suffered $19 billion weather disasters so far this year. Nearly 150 Americans have died in these events. Weather disasters and costs are far above the nation’s historical average; they are exhausting federal disaster resources. 

The Treasury Department says climate change is inflationary. It is causing increases in consumer food and energy prices and the prices of many other goods and services, as well as business and job disruptions, insurance rate increases, and reductions in property values. 

Skeptics argue the Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. But now, warming is happening at a rate not seen in 10,000 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has assessed science since the 1970s, says ‘the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact’ and the science is ‘unequivocal.’ 

Yet, your website says that if you are elected president, you will withdraw America from the Paris Climate Agreement again, expedite fossil energy production, reduce vehicle efficiency standards, and discontinue incentives for clean energy. Why should the American people vote for a candidate who denies, and worse yet, fails to help mitigate, the dangerous reality they see all around them?” 

In politics, a lie is not a mistake. It’s a tactic. Lies are Trump’s effort so far to inspire paranoia, fear and the impression of America as a failed state. Why? Because such a country welcomes an all-powerful leader to save it. 

Free speech should come with obligations. Trump should have forfeited his right to the airwaves long ago. And that’s a fact. 

William S. Becker is co-editor of and a contributor to “Democracy Unchained: How to Rebuild Government for the People,” and contributor to “Democracy in a Hotter Time.” He is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.