Mr. Wallace raised eyebrows after saying that he did not consider fact-checking — or “truth-squading,” in his words — to be a central component of his moderating role. His comments circulated again in the days after what was arguably Mr. Lauer’s most memorable misstep, when he failed to challenge Mr. Trump’s false claim that he had opposed the Iraq war.
The notion of a moderator as a fact-checker “is too simplistic,” said the Rev. John I. Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame and a board member of the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonpartisan group that oversees the events. “What a good journalist does is ask follow-up questions that challenge the candidate to explain.”
“The moderator can’t do it all; the onus falls on us a little bit, as the body politic,” to determine if a candidate is plausible, he added. “The moderator can make a mistake by being the voice of God, saying, ‘Here’s the way it is.’”
He said he did not watch the NBC forum. But he added that the commission had sought out moderators who would facilitate a civil and sober discussion — “It sounds a little moralizing, but I’m a priest, so indulge me,” he said — in contrast with what he considered flashier, less substantive debates during the primaries.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member