From where you can look at Esquire magazine from 04, you can look at before that and I was against the war in Iraq.

So you're moderating a forum with a candidate for president of the United States and you get hit with a couple of statements that are presented as truth.

The crux of the answer is that he Donald Trump never supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

This part, you can check pretty easily trumps referring to this article in which he doesn't so much explicitly state his opposition to the war as say what a mess it is and that he would never have handled it that way.

Also trump's repeated claims that he opposed the war from the beginning, which Was a year before this article was published in August 2004.

Right at the moment, by the way, when public opinion was changing on the war from positive to negative, in fact esquire felt so strongly that trump had misrepresented his position in the peace, particularly in this major foreign policy speech from august I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning.

That they added an editor's note correcting him at the top of the article being a well informed and prepared moderator, you would of course know all these things that trump's opposition to the war.

A cornerstone of his foreign policy credentials is questionable at best and you would also know this, which was said on the same stage to you less than an hour before now, my opponent was for the war in Iraq.

He says he wasn't.

You can you can go back and look at the record he supported.

He told Howard stern he supported it.

Are you for invading Iraq?

Yeah, I guess so.

So.

Now is your chance to push back on a statement that you know is a lie.

A lie about an issue that was decisive in Hillary Clinton's defeat by Barack Obama in 2008.

A lie.

This candidate used to separate himself from his primary opponents.

Just a fucking lie correcting that sort of deceit is what a journalist is trained to do or you could just move on.

People talk about you and commander in chief and not just Secretary Clinton, but some of your Republican opponents in the primary season and they wonder about your temper.

We shouldn't be too harsh on matt lauer alone.

Fact checking in the 2016 election has proven to be a gargantuan and uniquely difficult task in the face of two candidates with shaky relationships to the truth.

I mean, there are no shortage of clip compilations on youtube showing Hillary Clinton being less than honest.

Just a few weeks ago, for example, she said this, I'm the only candidate who ran in either the democratic or the Republican primary who said from the very beginning, I will not raise taxes on the middle class, which is kind of odd considering that 15 out of 17 GOP candidates for president actually signed a written pledge agreeing to no tax hikes, not just on the middle class on everyone.

I found that live pretty easily with the help of politifact dot com, one of the largest online fact checking sites in the world And the Internet has been at the forefront of dedicated fact checking operations since the early 2000s in 2016.

The Duke reporters lab found 96 active fact checking projects in 37 different countries and these organizations do great work collecting dubious political statements and judging their accuracy on nuanced rating scales.

But there's one problem mr trump.

Let's stay on this issue of immigration.

You have been very critical of Mark Zuckerberg of facebook, who has wanted to increase the number of these H one B.

It's not at all critical of him.

Where did I read this and come up with this that you were probably, I don't know you people write this stuff, I don't know where you are.

The problem is that television is still the number one source of information for american voters and on television politicians who lie often get a free pass in the clip.

We just saw that moderator went on to apologize for her mistake.

That's pretty unbelievable considering that the article she mentioned with trump's criticism of Mark Zuckerberg, not only existed, it existed on trump's own website that's unpreparedness to the extreme.

But it goes further than that because even when you are aggressive and prepared trump has a way of wriggling out of the truth.

Like when he lied and said that he saw Arabs cheering in Jersey city On 9 11.

You know the police say that didn't happen at all.

Those rumors have been on the Internet for some time.

So did you misspeak yesterday and you saw that with your own eyes, There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large arab populations, they were cheering as the World Trade Center came down.

We have three extremely important presidential debates coming up.

Those moderators have a huge task taking on candidates as shameless as trump and as calculated as clinton but their focus should be on the audience and on what works and what works on tv is imagery graphics.

I mean one of the most effective fact checks this election season was by Fox News who not only called trump out on his lies, but projected the actual facts onto the screen for the audience to see your numbers don't add up.

The second thing network should do is fact check in real time on chiron's as was pointed out to me by master fact checker Alexis Montes, charlie's over at the Poynter Institute.

CNN experimented with fact checking Kyron's earlier this election season.

Now it's unclear if it was a mistake.

But for God's sake, it was awesome.

A huge problem with lies on tv news is that they tend to be repeated or shown without any clear indication that they're false.

In fact I did that at the beginning of this video in 2012 the New America Foundation found that the more familiar acclaim becomes, the more likely we are to think it's true even after we've heard a correction.

So instead of that completely stupid audience reaction on Twitter networks carrying the debates could throw up a chiron that refutes patently false claims in real time Tv networks by and large have steered clear of these measures.

Perhaps out of some vague notion of neutrality.

One debate moderator has already said that he doesn't feel like it's his job to be a truth squad.

What do you do if they make assertions that you know to be untrue?

That's not my job.

That's not, I do not believe that it's my job to be a truth squad.

But what are news organizations, if not truth squads, free people, the world over, still care about facts and we look to our news media to sort through bullshit and lies to find them.

The fact is that neutrality doesn't mean equivalency.

Hillary clinton lies more than she should and it's important for fact checkers to call her and every other politician on it.

You talk about leveling with the american people.

Have you always told the truth?

I've always tried to always, always, some people are going to call that wiggle room.

But let's be honest, donald trump exists in a totally different category.

Lies and bullshit.

Are his political currency?

What do I know about it?

All I know is what's on the internet.

You may not be able to get through to donald trump, but good journalism can get through to the rest of us.

So if you get a chance to speak to any of our leaders in a public forum, make sure you're well prepared and aggressive.

And if you understand what the facts are, let us know there is a new nerd writer video every Wednesday.

So if you go right there and click that, you'll subscribe to this channel and get all the videos.

I really have to thank Alexey Eos McSorley's, who is the director of the International fact checking network at the Poynter Institute who collaborated with me on this project and whose work has been invaluable in the research of it.

I'm gonna put everything he's ever written on this in the description below.

It's all really great stuff.

You should definitely check it out.

I'm gonna put his twitter handle right below me to thank you very much alexia does your awesome.