And the sort of people who are going to want to read a fact-checked version of the debate are in the tiny minority and likely well-informed enough that they have completely made up their minds well and truly before the debate.
I do however think that fact checking is an absolutely great idea, it just needs to be done live. There could be a fact checking team which can interrupt candidates with objections, or ring a "pants on fire" bell, or something entertaining.
But post-processing when it comes to debates can mean overlaying information on top of the video that identifies clear falsehoods -- undermining a candidate's ability to play fast and loose with the truth to win, knowing that there's no real penalty for doing so.
So the "winner" might emerge differently if for example, news agencies didn't publish the live video, but each agency did independent fact checking (if the video were under embargo) and then each published annotated and unannotated versions.
You could still watch the vanilla version if you wanted to, but at least there would be widespread access to factually vetted versions as well.
This is similar to why I might want to watch a popular film on opening night, before the rest of the world declares it a winner or loser.
The headline and "winner"/"loser" judgements of tonight's debate will be loud and unavoidable by tomorrow morning. Their impact can be insidious.
Adams, creator of Dilbert, has a track record for predicting Trump's moves. He has a theory worth looking into about Trump's church pastor as a youth being Norman Vincent Peale, the author of The Power of Positive Thinking. Adams is a trained hypnotist and detects in Trump the influence of Peale's techniques.
That said, I'm not American and enjoy my political theater with a pinch of conspiracy theory, so... grain of salt.
ANALYSIS | 13:37 GMT First Debate Between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich
http://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/first-debate-between-giant-...
