We have never seen anything like it: A candidate for President who tells interviewers that he won’t participate unless they agree not to fact check his assertions.
The Washington Post wrote about Trump’s adamant insistence that he must not be fact checked. Vance now says the same. They do not want to be held accountable for lying.
The Post has a regular fact-checker, Glen Kessler, who reports on claims by politicians. He says that Trump made 30,573 false or misleading statements during his four year term in office. That’s an average of 21 lies a day.
What do you say to political candidates who think it is unfair to correct them if they lie?
Donald Trump and his campaign have waged an aggressive campaign against fact-checking in recent months, pushing TV networks, journalism organizations and others to abandon the practice if they hope to interact with Trump.
Trump nearly backed out of an August interview with a group of Black journalists after learning they planned to fact-check his claims. The following month, he and his allies repeatedly complained about the fact-checking that occurred during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, berating journalists and news executives in the middle of the televised debate.
And this month, Trump declined to sit down for an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” because he objected to the show’s practice of fact-checking, according to the show.
Campaign advisers also expressly asked CBS News to forgo fact checking in its vice-presidential debate with Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance — who then complained on air when a moderator corrected him.
The moves are the latest example of Trump’s long-held resistance to being called to account for his falsehoods, which have formed the bedrock of his political message for years. Just in recent weeks, for example, Trump has seized on fabricated tales of migrants eating pets and Venezuelan gangs overtaking cities in pushing his anti-immigration message as he seeks a second term in office…
In August, Trump had agreed to appear at a National Association of Black Journalists gathering, where three of the group’s members would interview him. But upon realizing that he would be fact-checked in real time, Trump’s team said he would not be taking the stage
NABJ president Ken Lemon described a tense scene backstage as Trump’s team objected to any fact-checking of the interview, with the discussions lasting more than an hour. “If you guys are going to fact check, he’s not going to take the stage,” Lemon said a Trump aide told him. “They were just totally insistent that he was not going to take the stage if we fact-checked.”
Lemon said he spoke with three Trump aides — who at one point called to confer with someone not at the event — about their objections to fact-checking as the audience waited.
At one point, Lemon said he became convinced Trump was ultimately going to back out of the interview over his fact-checking concerns, so Lemon prepared remarks to go out and explain the cancellation to the crowd. But in the end, Trump took part in the interview, making headlines by falsely suggesting that Vice President Kamala Harris had only recently decided to identify as Black.
“It was a very revealing moment where we got to hear him answer questions, and we were shocked at what some of the answers were,” Lemon said.
Trump officials blamed the delay in taking the stage on technical audio issues.
“Here’s the truth: President Trump initially couldn’t take the stage because there were audio issues. Once the audio issues were resolved, President Trump took the stage and participated in the discussion, and the fact-checks still occurred,” Karoline Leavitt, a Trump spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Harris, too, has taken a cautious approach to interviews, largely eschewing rigorous policy questioners for lower-stakes venues and having her advisers, at times, try to prescreen questions. Her blitz this week of unscripted media settings hewed to friendly questioners, including Howard Stern of Sirius XM, CBS’s “Late Night with Stephen Colbert” and the popular “Call Her Daddy” podcast. During Harris’s NABJ forum, the interviewers pressed less contentiously than they did Trump, and during the ABC presidential debate with Trump, the moderators did not fact check her in the same manner.
One Trump adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the campaign’s thinking, argued that Trump is treated more harshly than others. “Every candidate is opposed to fact checking on some degree, but if you’re Trump, you know they are always going to go after you harder,” the adviser said.
But Harris does not misstate the truth regularly, as Trump does, and she has also not protested being fact-checked. And unlike Trump, she sat down for a wide-ranging interview with “60 Minutes” that aired last week.
As part of Harris’s interview, the show took the extraordinary step of explaining why it was not airing a similar segment with Trump, who had initially agreed to an interview before changing his mind.
“A week ago, Trump backed out,” CBS correspondent Scott Pelley explained. “The campaign offered shifting explanations. First, it complained that we would fact-check the interview. We fact-check every story. Later, Trump said he needed an apology for his interview in 2020.”
Pelley went on to explain that the 2020 incident for which Trump requested an apology had never occurred….
During the debate between Trump and Biden, CNN publicly stated in advance that the moderators would not fact-check, instead leaving that to the candidates.
Before the second debate, Jason Miller, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said the team was told by an ABC journalist that similar to the CNN debate, there would be no fact checks from the moderators. However, a copy of the ABC News debate rules, obtained by The Post, did not put any limitations on fact checking.
Nonetheless, Trump and his allies were furious with ABC for pointedly fact-checking Trump live during his debate with Harris. At one point, after Trump falsely claimed that some Democrats support executing babies after birth, moderator Linsey Davis noted, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”
At another point — after Trump repeated the false and baseless claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were abducting and eating their neighbors’ cats and dogs — moderator David Muir interjected to say that ABC News had reached out to the city manager, who “told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”
Trump’s advisers — including Chris LaCivita and Miller — erupted at ABC executives and journalists in the middle of the debate, according to the people familiar with the situation. They implored the network to stop fact-checking for the rest of the event and said it had breached its promise, and a call was even lodged to the president of ABC News by Susie Wiles, the campaign’s top aide. At least one Trump adviser demanded to talk to the moderators during the debate.
The network declined to comment.
“Everyone who watched the ABC debate agreed that it was a 3-on-1 fight with 2 moderators who wrongly ‘fact-checked’ President Trump multiple times, but did not fact check Kamala Harris ONCE, even though she spewed multiple lies on the debate stage,” Leavitt said in her statement. “The ABC debate was widely viewed as one of the worst moderated debates in history, yet President Trump still won.”
Harris spokesman Kevin Munoz responded: “You have to lie to be fact-checked, and only one person on that stage was telling lie after lie.”

”Arnold Palmer was all man. He was strong and tough.
And when he took showers with the other pros.
They came out of there saying, “Oh my God, that’s unbelievable. Highly sophisticated women used to look at Arnold. I had to say it.”
DJT LATROBE PA Rally 10/19/24
His very public psychological collapse is quite messy, disturbing & dangerous.
LikeLike
Trump’s vulgarity is full frontal.
Maybe guys talked like that in the locker room (like “grab ’em by the p—y”), but Trump now speaks to the public as if he always in the locker room.
LikeLike
I am so disillusioned & disappointed in so many of my fellow Americans who can put up with even one of the multitude of negative traits & behaviors that Trump practices. I have lifelong friends–wonderful, intelligent people, who support Trump. We may have some gentle discussions & debates about issues, occasionally but we can never really get down & dirty about how we really feel about the opposite side or it will go very dark and is not worth destroying our relationships. I know I’m the only one in this situation, but I’ll ever understand how these good people can support such a flawed, damaged man like Trump.
LikeLike
Perhaps your friends have crafted a facade of reason and caring to hide the fact that they are comfortable supporting a man who has no redeeming qualities, who may well be suffering from the early stages of dementia, and who lies every time he opens his mouth.
I have come to the melancholy conclusion that significant numbers of Americans are at heart uncomfortable or opposed to the idea of anyone other than White men in positions of power. They use different reasons to cover this bigotry,but it’s there.
We have former friends who would often negatively comment about black co-workers and politicians. It became clear that they would excuse poor performance by politicians or colleagues when those colleagues were White and held acceptable views.
It was sad, and at times I miss those friends; at the same time, I no longer get have to listen to them spout utter nonsense from talk radio or Fox “News”.
LikeLike
In a sane world, a refusal to be fact-checked would be a disqualifying event.
Here, we have a shamelessness that is alarming.
Trump can lie all he wants. But he can’t complain about getting called on it. No one can.
No voter should find Trump’s demands of “no fact-checking” anything but disqualifying.
LikeLike
Ohio may not have started it (that was 1987 when the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine), but it did provide a slingshot effect.
Ohio used to prohibit outright lies in political advertisements with Ohio’s False Statement Law. The official statutes involved were found under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) § 3517.21(B).
This law prohibited individuals or organizations from knowingly or recklessly making false statements about a candidate or ballot issue during political campaigns. But then Steve Chabot (R, of course) decided his only way to win a congressional seat vs. Steve Driehaus (D) with outright lie in 2010 about Driehaus and ACA. Then…after Chabot and Susan Anthonly List were proven to have egregiously and intentionally lied…
In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus that the Susan B. Anthony List had the right to challenge the Ohio law on free speech grounds. The Court didn’t directly rule on whether the statements were false or not, but it held that the Susan B. Anthony List had standing to sue because they could face prosecution under the law.
Following the ruling, the case returned to the lower courts, where a federal judge struck down the Ohio law, stating that the government cannot police political speech, even if it’s false. This essentially confirmed that, under U.S. law, false statements in political campaigns are protected by the First Amendment.
As Tim Snyder explains exhaustively Republicans believe freedom is negative…freedom from consequence and ability to do whatever is in their interest. Meanwhile, Democrats will continue to fight for the positive freedom for honest, fair, mutual sharing of the common good.
LikeLike
This is hardly a surprise.
The First Amendment doesn’t condition its applicability on the truth or falsity of speech.
Nor should it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s so strange that so many people who believe Trump will rule as an evil dictator also believe the government should have the authority to decide what is true and false and what may and may not be spoken. Like, what if your team is not running the government?
LikeLike
Yeah, a Ministry of Truth is never a good idea.
LikeLike
What kinds of lies should be called out by moderators, and what kind should be called it by opponents?
When Trump blames Harris for the border crisis, that is an opinion lie. No one person or administration is responsible for any part of that complex issue. Harris and her supporters, Obama in the case posted here, are responsible to call out this kind of lie.
Immigrants are eating cats should be mentioned as a lie by every journalist writing about it. Moderators should be required to point such things out. Stations repeating such a lie without referring to it as unsubstantiated should lose their broadcast license.
LikeLike
And then they can dismiss all criminal prosecutions and other civil litigation, because there won’t be any time for them.
LikeLike
Then you can kiss the First Amendment goodbye.
LikeLike
When I was growing up, “truth in advertising” was a big deal and one of the primary reasons why things like cigarettes, which advertised the goodness of smoking, could no longer be aired. I see false advertising and lies promulgated by political candidates and government officials as being just as consequential as products that are a danger to our health.
tRump thinks he has a 1st Amendment right to lie, so he pushes the limits. But letting him get away with so many lies is a very serious danger to our country and can result in deaths, as with his COVID lies. I think that (except when there are top secret risks to our nation) regulations that do not permit politicians and representatives of our government to intentionally tell lies to the people should be considered no different from laws that do not allow anyone to shout “Fire” in a movie theater when there is no fire.
LikeLike
Hopefully not TMI at this point, but I’m finding your post thought-provoking.
Lies told by govt leaders in office has another shade of meaning, now that we survived Trump’s attempt to subvert the certification of 2020 vote, culminating in the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol. At issue are Trump’s lies about vote fraud (continuing after failure of 63 lawsuits lost due to lack of evidence), his pressuring of GA Secy of State to ‘find 11,280 votes’ to change that state’s results, his pressuring of states to accept fraudulent substitute elector slates [including attempt to involve DOJ by appointing a crony as acting AG] , his social media welcoming of known violent actors to protest certification of vote, his speech just before Congressional certification of vote for nearby rally-attenders to march on the Capitol, and his pressuring VP to deny certification & sanctify fraudulent slates of electors.
The thing is: this isn’t just about lies. Truth is hard to quantify/ prove in court. This is about actions taken by the President. Even in the SCOTUS majority ruling on ‘immunity of president,’ many of these actions are sent back to district courts in order to determine which of them do or do not qualify as ‘official president actions.’ For a bracing and satisfying read, peruse Sotomayor dissent. Wow, does she put things in perspective.
Bottom line: in a democracy, we cannot legislate away political propaganda [lies] designed to undermine our democracy/ install an “I alone can solve our problems” autocrat. We have to create a society/ govt that supports all the people, and represents their voice, via their votes, authentically. A society which installs trickle-down economics creating a billionaire class capable of transferring majority of natl wealth to the top 1%-5%, then doubles down via funding SCOTUS decisions like Citizens-United to continue the trend– and allows extreme gerrymandering to reinforce it—robs the people of their voice. They then are vulnerable to what we’re seeing now.
LikeLike
ECE Professional– Nope, can’t be done that way. Truth in advertising is unrelated– still around, well-defined by law, observed and enforced [at least it would seem so from the pharmaceutical ads 😉]. That’s about products—and regulated capitalism– not people. If consumers cannot make an informed choice based on truthful information, there can be no fair competition. Candidates can legally lie their heads off. We depend on our own research from factual sources, on the opposing candidate and party, and on media to reveal and counter them. And they do. Trumps’ lies, in and out of office, have been revealed, countered, even counted for years now.
At issue here is a media outlet’s policy– needed in order to maintain integrity of reporting, or they lose business. Whether they choose to follow it, or allow themselves to be bullied into blowing it off is on them. Everyone now knows– thanks to media– that Trump &Vance (bolstered by campaign staff) refused to be interviewed if they were fact-checked. That tells the people something important they need to know in order to choose their candidate [louder than any lawsuit– or god forbid, arrest by ‘the truth police’].
“Lies told by Trump during covid” is a dicey proposition. Under our govt (unlike China’s), there could be no federally mandated shutdowns or mitigation– up to the states. Trump challenged CDC, told lies etc, but such things are under state purview; they used their own best judgment & info sources to make decisions. [CDC for good reasons is an independent agency, and proved its mettle despite Trump’s aggressive politicization of pandemic response.]
That a quarter of the states chose to follow Trump lies and open too early/ refuse masks etc is on them, and their citizens suffered and even died for it — thanks to the dunderheads they are for electing fear-mongering, cynical, anti-public-interest ciphers, year after year. [Not to mention enough voters to put a Trump in office in the first place]. Would having laws against leaders lying in office have prevented that? What are lies and what is truth during the course of a novel, global pandemic, where science is developing and advice changing by the day? Legal system is no panacea for that. Voters arguably made the ruling by casting the man decisively out of office.
LikeLike
Sorry, bethree5, I’ve been sick today, and now I see that I did not make my point clear, which was that truth in representative government should be at least as important, if not more so, as truth about commercial products sold for financial gain in capitalism.
Also, I believe the intent to deceive matters a lot, such as when tobacco companies were found to have concealed that they knew their products were dangerous yet pushed them anyways. I think intentions are especially important for politicians and government officials, and that they can and should be distinguished from accidental misstatements or occasionally forgetting. When tRump called for people to fight 30 times at his rally at the Eclipse on Jan 6th, while telling them to be peaceful only 1 time, that suggested he really wanted to see them fight at the Capitol, and being peaceful was said just once to cover his a*s. Corroborating evidence and testimony further made his intentions clear as well.
LikeLike
FYI, the info I provided about the Ellipse rally I read in a summary of Jack Smith’s evidence somewhere this week, but I can’t find it, and now I see that others have stated it was 20 times that tRump called on people to fight, not 30.
LikeLike
Sorry for late reply, ECE. Thanks for the clarification, I agree. Hope you recovered quickly!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe I’ve missed it, but it seems the Harris/Walz campaign could exploit the claims of the “right to lie without consequence” (which, face it, is the beginning and end of Trump’s approach to life itself) a little better than they have been.
Like, I don’t know, flooding the media with proof of how little they care for truth?
LikeLike
Spot-on, jsrtheta!
Intentional deception is fraud, so maybe that angle should be addressed and also included when “flooding the media with proof of how little they care for truth.” For example, tRump’s refusing to engage wherever he will be fact-checked intimates that he intends to defraud the American people. So that, as well as examples of his many fraudulent ventures, should be included, like the rulings on his fake university and his fake charity. (If I won the lottery, I think buying ads covering this kind of stuff could be an effective way to spend the money trying to wake up Americans and help prevent us from getting this phoney president again.)
LikeLike