Fox News’ Your World aired a discussion on Wednesday, examining the recent presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

The segment included commentary from a Harris-Walz campaign co-chair, who addressed the frequent interruptions faced by Trump throughout the debate, asserting that these interruptions were largely due to supposedly Trump’s numerous -- and allegedly significant -- factual inaccuracies during the event. as Breitbart reports.

Trump’s remarks were often interrupted when he made claims that were quickly met with skepticism by the debate moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis.

During the debate, Trump brought up a series of controversial claims, including a statement about immigrants allegedly eating pets in Springfield, Ohio.

Trump’s False Claims Lead to Interruptions

In reference to the interruptions, Harris-Walz campaign co-chair defended the moderators’ actions, explaining that Trump’s “whoppers” required immediate correction.

The co-chair argued that Trump’s claims went beyond ordinary exaggerations and were clear misrepresentations of reality. He specifically mentioned the claim about immigrants in Springfield, OH, as one of the most egregious examples, noting that the moderators had no choice but to intervene.

“He was saying things that were not just misrepresentations of fact, but whoppers,” the co-chair stated during the broadcast. This level of inaccuracy, according to the co-chair, warranted the moderators’ frequent interruptions and immediate fact-checking.

Fox News host Neil Cavuto also seemed to believe that the moderators were justified in fact-checking Trump in real time. “He was interrupted, probably should have been interrupted and fact-checked when it came to migrants eating cats and dogs and all of that stuff and then killing babies after they’re out of the womb,” Cavuto said.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims During the Debate

The evening's controversies were not limited to immigration. The former president was confronted by Harris about Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint from which he has long distanced himself, and he also expressed his views on in vitro fertilization (IVF), which Harris attempted to dispute.

While Harris' takes on those topics did not receive the same immediate fact-checking during the debate, they were mentioned as points that should have been addressed in the discussion.

The co-chair highlighted his belief that while Trump faced constant interruptions due to his more outlandish statements, Harris was allowed more freedom to speak. However, he clarified that Harris was not immune to fact-checking and that her claims, particularly on topics like inflation and job growth, were indeed scrutinized after the debate.

Post-Debate Fact-Checking Favors “Normal” Topics

The broadcast shifted to a discussion on how post-debate fact-checking plays a critical role in reviewing the candidates’ statements. The co-chair emphasized his stance that while Trump’s falsehoods demanded immediate correction, Harris’ statements were often reserved for post-debate analysis. He noted that Harris’ statements, while perhaps not entirely accurate, were on more “normal” topics such as economic growth, allowing for a more measured response from the moderators and the press.

“I think this is part of your role, the press on the next day…part of what we’re doing in the after-debate discussion is fact-checking some of the things that are more normal, more standard,” the co-chair remarked.

Harris Given More Leeway for Post-Debate Analysis

Harris’ statements, particularly on inflation and job growth under different administrations, were brought up during the Fox News discussion. According to the co-chair, these topics did not require the same level of immediate intervention from the moderators. Instead, they were left for post-debate analysis, allowing for a deeper review of the data.

This approach, according to the co-chair, provided the opportunity for the press to dig into the details of Harris’ statements after the fact. He acknowledged that while Harris’ claims were not perfect, they did not rise to the level of requiring real-time correction, unlike Trump’s assertions about immigration and other controversial issues.

Future Debates Could See Different Approach

As the discussion continued, Cavuto raised the question of whether Harris would participate in another debate with Trump. While no clear answer was provided, the co-chair indicated that future debates may feature a similar approach to fact-checking, with moderators focusing more on what he argued were Trump’s more extreme claims.

The debate has sparked ongoing conversation about the role of moderators in maintaining factual accuracy and how they should handle candidates who repeatedly make false statements. Both Harris and Trump’s performances are likely to be further scrutinized as the campaign progresses.

In conclusion, the Fox News discussion underscored the challenges moderators face when dealing with candidate claims in real time. The Harris-Walz campaign representative to the position of defending the moderators' arguably unbalanced interruptions, stating that Trump’s comments went beyond exaggeration and required immediate correction, while Harris’ claims on more traditional topics allowed for post-debate analysis.

The handling of fact-checking during the debate will likely remain a central topic of discussion as the 2024 presidential race continues.