ABC's Linsey Davis admits fact-checking of Trump was because CNN let his statements 'hang' at first debate | Fox News
By: Gabriel Hays (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Fox News media analyst challenges ex-Clinton adviser Mark Penn's call for a full internal investigation into the ABC News Presidential Debate.
ABC News anchor Linsey Davis admitted in a post-debate interview that her fact-checking of former President Trump was influenced by the earlier CNN debate that went disastrously for President Biden.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, David said she wanted to address concerns that Trump's statements could be allowed to "hang" there unchallenged by his opponent or the moderators, as they were when Trump and Biden debated on CNN in June.
"Davis, wearing pink glasses while speaking to The Times over breakfast at the Ritz Carlton in Philadelphia, said the decision to attempt to correct the candidates was in response to the June 27 CNN debate between Trump and President Biden, whose poor performance led to his exit from the race," the Times reported.
"People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators," Davis told the outlet on Wednesday morning.
The LA Times gushed over Davis in the profile, calling her a "rising star" who "held Trump's feet to the fire."
In one viral moment, Davis sternly told Trump that "there is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born," after Trump invoked former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam's remarks in 2019 suggesting a live baby could be killed after being born, following a "discussion" between the physician and the mother.
While liberals celebrated the moment, one pro-life group demanded a correction from ABC News, saying Davis' comments were "100% inaccurate."
Since the debate, both Muir and Davis have been slammed by critics for appearing biased towards Vice President Kamala Harris. The debate moderators fact-checked Trump five times and failed to correct Harris a single time on Tuesday evening.
Trump alleged bias by the ABC moderators as well, telling Fox & Friends on Wednesday, "It was three to one. It was a rigged deal as I assumed it would be."
Despite zero fact-checks for Harris, Davis insisted that her team intended to fact-check both candidates throughout the course of the night.
The LA Times stated, "With co-moderator David Muir, Davis had studied hours of campaign rallies and interviews to prepare for the much-anticipated event at Philadelphia's National Constitution Center, and were ready to counter the candidates' most egregious statements."
Davis countered accusations of bias by stating that she and Muir could not catch every misstatement, the Times reported, without noting that none of Harris' incorrect statements received rebukes.
Elsewhere in the article, the outlet noted how Davis simply ignored the criticism that she was helping Harris, reporting that she shut off her social media accounts.
"There is a stereotype that I am acutely aware of that I can't be unbiased covering this moment. And the anonymous Instagram people serve as reminders every day," Davis said.
Fox News Digital reached out to ABC News for comment.
Fox News Digital's Brian Flood contributed to this report.
Gabriel Hays is an associate editor for Fox News Digital.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Fascism References, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
236 visitors
And the truth will set you free. Retribution. Sad shit right there.
That is hilarious considering all she did was admit she didn't want Trump's LIES to go unchecked as they did in the last debate. What Trump supporters really want is for his MOUNTAIN of fucking lies to go unchecked. That's the really sad shit. The truth is his boot licking sycophants who worship on that mountain of lies don't want truth because they're sad little whiny selfish petulant children who can't stand being equal with anyone else and just moan and groan about what they see as the loss of their privileged pedestal in America that rightwing religious conservatives have enjoyed for far too long.
So she "fact checked" Trump as a form of a temper tantrum? And here I thought se was an adult.
Like Harris' did?
Of course not, I'm sure she watched the prior debate to prepare for this one and was aghast, as most rational thinking folk who like truth and facts over complete bullshit rhetoric were, at the numerous lies that Trump spouted that went completely unchallenged. Being a moderator with more than half a brain she chose to fact check a few of the huge demonstrably false claims the lying scum bag Trump tried to inject into the debate.
What a moderator should do is ask questions, let the folks answer them, and leave her or his personal opinions at the door.
So, she wanted to help Harris because she KNEW that she'd look like an idiot. Just as she has countless times in the past.
You're also forgetting that the moderator's job is not to fact check anybody during a debate.
How pathetic can these bloggers get? NO IT'S NOT A FUCKING CHALLENGE!!!!!!!
The only surprise is that she admitted it. Republicans are nuts to ever do a debate with that network again.
Why shouldn't she admit that she fact checked the former Liar in Chief? She didn't lie, he's the liar who should be fact checked every fucking time he opens his mouth.
Lol. Because it's not the job of a debate moderator insert themselves into the debate and cherry pick statements to "fact check" in order to help one of the participants.
Sounds like they are admitting the moderator helped Harris through the debate. Almost like they KNEW she would fall on her face.
Do you actually believe she fell on her face???
And this is the whole thing. They aren’t mad that their candidate told multiple, egregious lies. They’re mad that he didn’t get away with it.
If Harris ever says, in a debate, something on the level of babies are killed after they’re born, or immigrants are eating peoples’ cats and dogs, I will enthusiastically support any moderator calling “Bullshit” on her.
She certainly would have if she did not have the moderators bail her out.
She actually sat down for a local interview today. I’ll doubt she’ll do one again.
Asked for a specific policy to bring down prices, she says “I was born middle class” and rambles form there
That comment has no basis in reality. Just another purely partisan retort that no objective reader would buy. It is a true test of bias to watch that debate and not recognize that Harris was well-prepared, articulate, intelligent, and effective at both triggering Trump to illustrate why he is unfit and to make points about herself and her campaign.
Because it is not the job of the moderator to do that.
Her values haven't changed, though, and she is banking on
'What Can Be, Unburdened By What Has Been'
Maybe what she doesn't feel burdened by is any guilt over the border or the disastrous results of the Biden/Harris Admin. policies.
Your opinion counts here too. Thank you for providing it.
There are no universally agreed upon rules for what a moderator does in a presidential debate. Every one of these events is negotiated for its own unique terms. You can like it or not, but the hosts decide what the job of a moderator is.
If Trump wants to lie without being corrected, I guess he should do all of his debates on Fox News. But when simply not being called out for lying is the priority, I would hope most voters would consider that disqualifying.
Would you have a problem if there was a Fox debate and the moderators only fact checked Harris and stayed quiet with Trump?
My hunch is you would not have posted what tou did.
Very generally speaking, I don’t have a problem with moderators challenging candidates. Frequently, the questions do that. In fact, in this last debate questions were posed that challenged each candidate directly on things they have done or said. I would say that technique is common.
I think there can be a place for fact-checking, but it needs to be genuinely objective fact, and not a matter of opinion.
There are different ways to do it, though. When Linsey Davis fact-checked Trump, she did it and then went right to Harris. I think it would have been better if she gave Trump a chance to respond immediately. On the other hand, he is not exactly a shrinking violet. I think if he wanted to contest her words and assert his belief as truth, he would have.
On the other hand, when David Muir did it, he actually didn’t state it as fact. He said the network reached out to the city manager, conveyed what the manager said, and Trump was given a chance to respond. He declared that he saw it on television. So, he had a chance to respond, and that lame attempt was all the evidence he could muster.
I do. Without assistance she would have looked even worse.
I don't expect her to have that level of understanding of what's going on around her.
What would Harris have to do beyond being well-organized, intelligent, cogent, and masterfully baiting Trump into nutcase ramblings before you would recognize that her debate performance was very good in comparison to historical presidential debates?
I suspect your opinion of her debate performance was conceived before the debate even started.
Regardless, you are in a tiny minority if you actually believe she fell on her face.
How about having a history of having well-organized, intelligent, cogent and coherent interviews, comments or train of thought?
You asked my OPINIION. I gave it. Now you are pissed because my opinion isn't in line with yours? LMAO.
Still waiting for that to happen.
And we'll be waiting for a long time.
Until The 12th of Never!
As I suspected, you made up your mind before the debate. Even if her history was as bad as you perceive (and that does not square with actual fact) that does not in any way change the fact that she manipulated Trump into nutty ramblings while delivering a well-organized, cogent, intelligent delivery of her message.
And here is a fine example of Harris and the world watching Trump unravel on the world stage ...
[✘]
You think there is some positive “level of understanding” that leads a person to suggest people are eating pets or killing babies after birth?
Maybe paying attention to facts can lead one to that understanding. Didn't help her that even the moderator was as wrong and uninformed as well.
Maybe they should have stuck to doing their job and not propping up Harris.
Simply restating your absurd claim doesn’t make it any more convincing. There is no credible evidence that either lie has even a germ of truth. State laws on abortion are easy enough. All Trump, or you, or anyone else has to is site the state law that permits killing a baby after it has been born. No one has because no one can - because there is no such law.
And the sick claims about eating pets have been thoroughly investigated at this point. It has been well established by now that these stories were invented and later amplified by neo-Nazis and other racist conservatives.
Not only did they not do anything to prop up Harris, she didn’t even need it. It sounds you like you are totally ok with Trump lying about killing babies and eating pets. You’re only mad that a journalist called “bullshit.” It doesn’t seem to concern you that it was, in fact, bullshit.
Still doesn't change anything. It's apparent many aren't paying attention and making excuses. Then start crying when the obvious is called out.
You, or anyone else has cited this "investigation". Not that we really expect anything.
Like I said. Maybe they should have stuck to doing their job and not propping up Harris.
Sounds like you're OK with moderators interfering and giving out fictitious information.
"We're not coming for your guns" yet it was somehow relevant to have Newtown school seniors interview with Harris about voting in their first election when gun control is the only bond. I'll agree that the debate proceeded the interview but I still know that a zebra is not a horse.
There has been ample reporting on these stories. They are lies. Stop pretending otherwise. We also have seeds here on NT if Google is too difficult.
Are you aware that both Harris and Walz are gun owners? They have also had ample opportunity to try and come for people’s guns and they haven’t. So, I don’t see how this compares in anyway to the clear lie that Haitians are eating people’s pets.
"Are you aware that both Harris and Walz are gun owners?"
Yes. They have said so. Are you aware of the onerous pistol laws in New York City, part on an unconstitutional system, and how they have managed to preclude ownership by the unwashed - allowing the elite and connected to enjoy the 'privilege'? Rather than listen to the left, or any politician, I'd rather see their actions - or in this case not.
Distantly, yes. I don’t live there. However, I’m pretty sure that neither Harris nor Walz had anything to do with the establishment of NYC’s gun laws.
Trump lived there a long time. Did he do anything about those laws?
… and the Democrats have been the party of gun confiscation for sixty years. The, “We’re not coming for your guns” statement was nothing but preemptive bullshit left unchallenged.
Have they though? Whose guns have they confiscated?
I personally own 9 firearms. I have lived in California my whole life. This state has been run almost exclusively by the Democratic Party for like 50 years. They even have a super majority in the state legislature. No one has ever tried to confiscate any of my guns.
Lucky you. "Read my lips..." was another condescending campaign statement.
Because a candidate should be allowed to say that someone is killing babies after they’re born?
I’m not suggesting a moderator needs to correct everything that is arguably a matter of opinion, but shouldn’t objective bullshit get some kind of response? If there is a state that allows babies to be killed after they’re born, Trump certainly had the opportunity to name that state.
If only there was someone in the room besides the moderator to push back on any false claims Trump made..
She admitted before the debate she would intervene to help Harris. She can't even claim it was a spur of the moment reaction. It was a premeditated decision to help one candidate.
a moderator needs to correct everything that is arguably a matter of opinion
But as soon as you open that door it just becomes a partisan exercise with the moderator's bias and subjective opinions about what constitutes an egregious verse a normal lie to dominate. The whole purpose of a debate is to allow the candidates to thrash it out. Trump's lying should make it all the easier for Harris.
I agree - and have said so elsewhere on this site - that I think it is generally the job of the debater to correct their opponent. However, this has limited utility when time is so restricted and debating lies derails the intended purpose of the debate. Very often, all either candidate can do is declare “that’s not true,” which is not very convincing.
She did not say that - unless you are conceding that problem of lying comes from only/primarily the one candidate.
The lies that were corrected do not fall within the realm of subjectivity or opinion.
An investigation? You really think executives at ABC News need to investigate something?
Unsurprising. Expected. Demanded even. After multiple previous debates - particularly ones with Trump - many people have criticized moderators for letting Trump get away unchallenged for saying clearly objective bullshit. I think there is a real debate to be had about whether or not debate moderators should engage in fact-checking, and if so, to what degree.
It may be impossible to avoid entirely. Many debate questions - quite fairly, in my opinion - incorporate some declaration of fact from the questioner, or quote one of the candidates and ask for clarification.
Oooo. She is the Devil!
I’d love to hear how. Which of the 50 states allows the killing of a baby after it’s born?
They don't kill them in Minnesota, just don't try to help them live.
They don’t in any state. It’s pretty straightforward. The guy wants to be president and is going around saying they’re killing babies. It’s 100% a lie. And you don’t care.
A bare handful of abortions where a fetus is technically alive for some period is not the same as killing babies after they’re born. What’s more, neither you nor Charlie Kirk (nice source!
) know sufficient details about these cases to judge. I’ve seen the state records Kirk is looking at, and they are on the level of “headline” at best.
From the article..................
“Walz worked with his new Democrat-controlled Legislature to eliminate both the reporting requirement and the state’s legal obligation for doctors, nurses and medical professionals to administer life-saving care to infants born alive during an abortion procedure.”
Tacos - didn't NY in the past couple years allow abortion up to and including birth??
If a woman’s life is at risk, and the fetus is viable, they will just induce labor or perform a c-section, and then take care of the woman. No one is “aborting” babies after they’re born. Aside from it literally being murder, there’s no need for it.
You are judging medical events where you know next to nothing about the circumstances. It’s ridiculous.
And you are blowing it off like you know everything about the circumstances.
I know a couple things. I know what murder is. I know murder is illegal in every state, and I can link to or site the laws to you if you don’t believe that. I also know that when people - even babies - are murdered, someone usually gets arrested and thrown in prison.
If babies are really being murdered, it should be easy for you to prove it. I have seen zero proof.
Where did I say it was murder or that they kill them? Here is what I typed............
And THAT my friend, is the truth. Neglect, is sometimes covered by Good Samaritan laws.
This is ridiculous. If Donald wants special pleading to lie. . . he should hold his own debate with his own rules stipulated ahead of time. . . so that debaters can decide if they wish to indulge his stupid butt or not!
I can't even get through the comments (above), because this can't be taken seriously. We have to get pass Donald in our politics. The truth has been held 'hostage' too long already now!
Not while so many Republicans support him and Democrats can't quit him, either.
Harris needs Trump to run against because that way people won't focus on her 'policies' and record.