M. Gessen, an Opinion columnist, shares critical insights on the recent vice-presidential debate, expressing concerns about the normalization of Trump’s brand of politics. They argue that equating political opponents diminishes our understanding of democracy. The conversation touches on the dangers of misinformation in debates, challenges faced by journalists in accurately reporting dishonesty, and how misleading narratives can deepen political divides. Gessen's analysis provides a thought-provoking critique of contemporary political discourse.
Normalizing the presentation of falsehoods alongside facts in political debates significantly undermines the integrity of public discourse and understanding.
Implementing harm reduction strategies in journalism, such as cutting off microphones for repeated lies, can combat misinformation and enhance accountability.
Deep dives
The Impact of Debate Format on Political Truth
The podcast emphasizes the detrimental effects of treating lies and facts as equals in political debates. A specific example highlighted was the discussion surrounding a claim made about Springfield, Ohio, where a moderator allowed a false statement to stand without real-time fact-checking. This format creates a false sense of parity, undermining the foundation of political discourse by eroding the shared reality necessary for informed decision-making. The normalization of this approach is seen as a significant degradation of political life and public understanding.
Proposed Solutions for Ethical Journalism
The discussion proposes a harm reduction philosophy in journalism that aims to combat the spread of misinformation during debates. One suggested method is to cut off the microphones of candidates who repeatedly lie, prioritizing the public good over perceived fairness. This approach likens the transportation of information to delivering clean water, arguing that not addressing poisoned information is a disservice to society. Additionally, the need for innovative debate formats that allow for contextualized discussions is highlighted, necessitating a reevaluation of traditional debate practices to enhance political accountability.
M. Gessen, an Opinion columnist, watched Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate with a sense of dread. In their mind, the question was not who would win the debate but, rather: How much did we lose? In this audio essay, Gessen argues that when we put Trump and his acolytes on the same platform as regular politicians and treat them equally, “that normalization degrades our political life and degrades our understanding of politics.”
Thoughts? Email us at theopinions@nytimes.com.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode