DINH DOONG

In a move that has left the media world buzzing, CBS has reportedly decided to part ways with its star debate moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan after their handling of the recent vice-presidential debate sparked widespread backlash. The network, which has long touted itself as a beacon of journalistic integrity, seems to have had enough of the pair’s relentless fact-checking during the live broadcast. What was supposed to be a civil debate turned into what some critics have labeled “a two-hour fact-checking marathon,” leaving both candidates—and the viewers—exhausted.

The decision to cut ties with two of the network’s most recognizable faces comes on the heels of intense criticism from both viewers and political commentators, who felt the debate was less about the candidates and more about O’Donnell and Brennan flexing their fact-checking muscles. As one political pundit put it, “It was like watching two referees who wanted to be the MVPs of the game.”

O’Donnell and Brennan have been long-respected figures in the world of news, with years of experience anchoring shows like CBS Evening News and Face the Nation. But during the recent debate between Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Tim Walz, their reputation took a hit as they frequently interrupted both candidates to deliver real-time fact-checks, turning what was supposed to be a platform for discussing policies into a battle of “who’s more accurate?”

As the debate wore on, the interruptions became so frequent that Vance, at one point, sarcastically thanked the moderators for their “input,” while Walz quipped that he wasn’t sure if he was debating Vance or the fact-checkers. The comment was followed by a round of laughter from the audience, but it was clear that both candidates were feeling the heat.

One particularly telling moment came when Brennan interrupted Vance to correct him on a minor statistic about border security, prompting Vance to fire back, “I’d love to finish a sentence sometime.” O’Donnell, seemingly unfazed, continued with the correction, leaving the audience to wonder whether they were watching a debate or a trivia contest.

Shortly after the debate aired, the backlash was swift. Social media was flooded with complaints about the moderators’ overly aggressive fact-checking, with many viewers feeling that the debate had been overshadowed by the moderators’ eagerness to pounce on every misstep. Hashtags like #LetThemDebate and #FactCheckersGoneWild trended on X (formerly Twitter), with people from both sides of the political spectrum criticizing CBS for the lack of balance.

“It’s one thing to hold candidates accountable, but it’s another thing to constantly cut them off mid-sentence,” said one frustrated viewer. “I don’t watch debates to see moderators debate the candidates.”

Faced with mounting pressure and negative feedback, CBS executives reportedly convened an emergency meeting to discuss the network’s next steps. The decision to part ways with O’Donnell and Brennan, though surprising to some, was seen by insiders as an attempt to restore balance and credibility to the network’s debate coverage.

One CBS insider, speaking anonymously, said, “This wasn’t an easy decision, but it was clear that the moderators had crossed a line. We value accuracy, but we also value the ability to facilitate a meaningful conversation. Unfortunately, that balance wasn’t there.”

While CBS remained tight-lipped in the immediate aftermath of the firings, both O’Donnell and Brennan reportedly expressed disappointment with the network’s decision. In a joint statement that has since circulated on social media, the former moderators defended their actions, stating that they were simply doing their job and ensuring that the American public received accurate information.

“The truth is non-negotiable,” their statement read. “We have always believed that our duty as journalists is to present the facts and hold public figures accountable for their statements. We stand by our actions during the debate and regret that CBS has chosen to part ways with us.”

The statement quickly garnered support from fellow journalists and news anchors, with some arguing that O’Donnell and Brennan were being unfairly punished for doing what moderators are supposed to do: keeping candidates honest.

However, not everyone was sympathetic to their plight. Critics of the duo accused them of making the debate about themselves, with one political analyst commenting, “When the moderators become the story, you’ve already lost.”

With the sudden departure of two of its most prominent anchors, CBS now faces the daunting task of finding replacements who can balance fact-checking with moderation without turning the debate into a three-way fight. Rumors are already swirling about potential replacements, with some suggesting the network might opt for a more “hands-off” approach in future debates.

“We need moderators who can guide the conversation, not control it,” said one CBS executive. “This isn’t a courtroom; it’s a debate. The candidates need to have the space to speak and present their ideas.”

There’s also speculation that CBS might take a more “neutral” approach by choosing moderators who are less involved in political journalism, possibly even pulling from the entertainment world. “If game show hosts can keep things moving, maybe they can moderate a debate too,” joked one media commentator.

As for O’Donnell and Brennan, their future in journalism is far from over. While their exit from CBS may have been abrupt, both moderators are expected to land on their feet. Media analysts predict that rival networks, particularly cable news outlets, will be eager to snatch up the two journalists, especially given their high profiles and experience.

“Just because CBS let them go doesn’t mean they’re finished,” said one media insider. “In fact, this could be the beginning of a new chapter for both of them. There’s no shortage of networks that would love to have them on board.”

Already, there are rumors that O’Donnell and Brennan are in talks to start their own podcast, where they would have complete control over the format and tone of discussions—without fear of getting fired for fact-checking.

In the end, the vice-presidential debate that led to the firing of O’Donnell and Brennan will be remembered not for the policies discussed, but for the controversy it sparked. The episode serves as a cautionary tale about the delicate balance between moderation and meddling and raises important questions about the future of political debates in a deeply polarized media landscape.

As CBS moves forward, it remains to be seen whether the network will adjust its approach to debate moderation or stick to its guns. Either way, the saga of O’Donnell and Brennan will likely serve as a lesson in how even the most experienced journalists can find themselves caught in the crossfire of a highly charged political environment.

For now, CBS is left to rebuild, O’Donnell and Brennan are left to reflect, and viewers are left to wonder: Will future debates be a fair exchange of ideas, or just another media circus?