What Matters Today

How to Watch a Presidential Debate

Vice President Richard M. Nixon, left, listens as Senator John F. Kennedy talks during their televised presidential race debate. This photo was made from a television screen in New York, Oct. 21, 1960. (AP Photo)
Vice President Richard M. Nixon, left, listens as Senator John F. Kennedy talks during their televised presidential race debate. This photo was made from a television screen in New York, Oct. 21, 1960. (AP Photo)

1) I recommend not watching the coverage immediately before the debate and, when the debate is finished, turn the television off and talk with your family about what you saw and what was important to you. And think about what you saw.

2) Candidates make different assumptions about government’s role, about economic policy, about the value of government regulation, about the role of the U.S. in the world, about appropriate use of military power, about US relationships with other countries… and the like. What are the governing philosophies of the candidates?

3) Come to a debate with a list of the issues that matter to you and ask what you learned about each candidate’s record and promises on those issues. Where are they similar and how do they differ?

4) When a candidate promises a new program or any move that will reduce government revenue — how will the candidate pay for it? Increase the deficit? Cut spending elesewhere and if so where? Raise taxes? On whom?

5) How accurate are candidates’ descriptions of opponents’ programs? And how accurate are a candidate’s descriptions of his or her own record?

6) Is the candidate willing to tell voters things they don’t want to hear about the challenges facing the country and what is required to address them?

7) If the country were faced with a crisis, what can you know from the candidates’ past performance, character, and dispositions about whether the country would be in good hands?


Get more of Professor Jamieson’s insight into what we can expect from the upcoming debates, and do your own fact-checking with help from one of the following websites:

FactCheck.org and Flackcheck.org
FactCheck.org and Flackcheck.org are projects of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which Jamieson directs, that aims to monitor the accuracy of major national candidates’ statements and rhetoric.

Columbia Journalism Review: Campaign Desk
The journalists at CJR turn their attention to “auditing” campaign ads, speeches and other media moments. In addition to CJR staff a group of veteran journalists will add their perspective to the Campaign Desk’s analysis.

The Fact-Checker
Run by journalist Glen Kessler, The Fact-Checker is a project of The Washington Post that publishes research evaluating and providing background and context to candidate statements and popular political stories.

Politifact and Truth-O-Meter
Politifact is an extensively cross-referenced fact-checking resource run as a joint project by the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly.

BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to feedback@billmoyers.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • HenryF5400

    Since we have all seen Romney continually shift his ideas around throughout this year, isn’t this strictly a debate of tactics (like one from debating class) and not a debate of honestly held ideas?

  • http://www.facebook.com/julian.rose3 Raphael Nora Rose

    Very nicely stated.

    I just read a reply on another thread where someone from the GOP scoffed at fact checkers. As if Truth was a matter of opinion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/julian.rose3 Raphael Nora Rose

    There are always going to be differences of opinion, but The Truth is not a matter for debate. When people lie, for political expediency, to line their pockets, or to amass power, they are guilty. Guilty of dishonesty. But hiding behind opinion is the most sinister of lies.

  • RJ

    Henry, I believe Obama’s shifting will be more to the point tonight.

  • Anonymous

    I so want to hear Romney articulate what his intentions are . Government does NOT create jobs. So he has to stop saying Obama has failed creating jobs. As a matter of fact, he has to STOP using the word “Failed”..It is a turn-off for me and many others I talk to. We just want to know how he would do things differently…and is war with Iran in his agenda!

  • Anonymous

    Obama’s shifting was due to a Republican congress who VOWED to make him a 1-term President rather than doing what they were voted into office to do.

  • CatK

    Sad but oh so true for some.

  • Edward Cherlin

    So the entirety of your advice on how to do your own fact checking is to go to the self-proclaimed fact-checking sites? Epic Fail. I have checked several fact-checking sites, and found several of them severely wanting. Politifact is the worst. If you really want to do your own fact checking, you have to work at it. You have to understand where facts come from, and where talking points pretending to be facts come from, too. You have to be able to look past the claim to the supporting data. You have to understand how to find multiple sources. You have to know how to lie with statistics, and how to penetrate those lies.

    There are reliable Web sites. You have to verify them yourself. Why should you believe me? You don’t know me.

    Most of all, you have to ask yourself, Am I reliable? Why should anybody believe me, most of all myself? Do I admit my mistakes? Do I try to find evidence (not just claims) contrary to what I believe, and think seriously about the evidence for and against? Do I follow the method of science, which is generally reliable, and is aware of its limitations, or the methods of ideology and superstition, which are defined by their claims to know everything?