ABC News moderator Linsey Davis has revealed that her focus during the recent presidential debate was to fact-check former President Donald Trump, while Vice President Kamala Harris was not subjected to the same scrutiny.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Davis acknowledged that the decision was intentional, sparking controversy over the selective approach to verifying claims made by the candidates, as Breitbart reports.

During the debate, Trump was fact-checked multiple times, while Harris was not similarly questioned, despite making statements that have been previously contested.

Davis explained that the choice to target Trump was influenced by his unchallenged claims in the previous CNN debate held in June. During that debate against President Joe Biden, Trump was perceived to have made several statements that were left uncorrected by both Biden and the moderators. According to Davis, this lack of real-time fact-checking raised concerns about the unchecked spread of misinformation.

Debate Moderators Prepared to Fact-Check Only Trump

Davis's admission came during a breakfast interview with the Los Angeles Times at the Ritz Carlton in Philadelphia. She disclosed that the debate moderators had specifically prepared to challenge Trump's statements, with little to no attention given to Harris's remarks.

Co-moderator David Muir also participated in fact-checking Trump, at times making errors in his corrections, while leaving Harris’s statements unexamined.

One notable instance of this occurred when Harris referenced the controversial "very fine people" hoax stemming from events in Charlottesville, Virginia. Despite the historical disputes surrounding the comment, Davis and Muir did not address or fact-check Harris on this point, even though the moderators had prepared to scrutinize Trump.

Concerns Rooted in Previous CNN Debate

The moderators' selective focus stemmed from the June 27 CNN debate, where Trump and Biden faced off. According to Davis, there were worries that the former president’s statements during that debate had gone unchallenged, allowing misinformation to potentially influence viewers.

She noted her belief that both the moderators and Biden had failed to correct or counter Trump's statements at the time, which influenced the decision to take a more proactive role in the recent debate.

The CNN debate had prompted concerns that falsehoods could go unchallenged again. Davis stated, “People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators." This concern became a guiding factor for Davis’s approach in the latest debate.

Fact-Checking Errors and Lack of Balance

While Trump faced repeated corrections, some of which were later determined to be inaccurate, Harris’s statements were largely left unchecked. The most significant example was her use of the "very fine people" hoax, a statement that had been factually disputed during the 2020 vice-presidential debate between Harris and former Vice President Mike Pence. The lack of balance in the moderators’ approach has drawn criticism from viewers and political commentators alike.

Additionally, Davis admitted that the moderators had studied past statements made by Trump but had not prepared to fact-check Harris. This led to an uneven approach during the debate, where Trump was frequently called out for potential inaccuracies while Harris was given more leeway in presenting her points.

Selective Scrutiny Raises Questions

The moderators' decision not to scrutinize Harris, especially on contentious points like the Charlottesville comment, has led to questions about journalistic fairness. In contrast to Trump, who was fact-checked repeatedly, Harris was not challenged even when she repeated claims that had been debunked in previous political debates.

This uneven approach to fact-checking mirrored the handling of the June CNN debate, where Biden was also not fact-checked. Despite making several contested statements, Biden’s remarks were not corrected or addressed by the moderators, a point that many viewers have highlighted in the wake of Davis’s recent admission.

Concluding Thoughts on Selective Fact-Checking

In her interview with the Los Angeles Times, Davis acknowledged the imbalance in the debate moderation but defended her approach by pointing to the potential impact of unchallenged falsehoods.

Her decision, driven by what she said were lingering concerns from the June debate, reveals a deliberate effort to counter Trump’s narrative, albeit at the expense of balance in fact-checking all candidates.

The revelation that moderators chose not to scrutinize Harris’s statements, particularly the "very fine people" hoax, has sparked discussions on journalistic responsibility and fairness in political debates. Many are questioning whether selective fact-checking serves the public interest, or if it unfairly skews the perception of candidates during a highly influential political event.

In the end, Davis’s strategy reflects a broader concern about the role of media in holding political figures accountable. However, the selective application of fact-checking in the recent debate raises important questions about fairness, transparency, and the responsibility of moderators in shaping public discourse.