Alex Bruno
In a development that can only be described as peak 2024 chaos, ABC has found itself $27 million poorer after losing five major advertisers in the wake of the latest presidential debate. The network, once a beacon of impartiality and trusted news, is now left clutching its pearls—and its bank account—after an explosive evening of real-time fact-checking, heated exchanges, and the collapse of corporate goodwill.
In a move no one saw coming—except maybe the Twitterverse—ABC declared, “We won’t host any debates in the future.” Because when the cost of political discourse is five major sponsors and millions in ad revenue, it’s clear that democracy is just too expensive.
It all started innocently enough. ABC took on the mammoth task of hosting a presidential debate featuring Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, hoping to maintain some semblance of decorum while showcasing two of the most polarizing political figures in the country. But instead of providing the spectacle advertisers had paid handsomely for, ABC’s moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, did something truly outrageous: they started fact-checking.
Yes, in a move that might now seem like career suicide, Muir and Davis had the audacity to correct Trump mid-debate, pointing out inaccuracies about everything from immigration to, bizarrely, dog-eating in Ohio. The moderators calmly corrected falsehoods, attempting to guide the conversation toward facts—a bold yet apparently costly decision.
Brands quickly took notice, and the post-debate silence in corporate boardrooms was deafening. This wasn’t the drama they signed up for. No, they were expecting fireworks, unchecked claims, and a good old-fashioned political free-for-all where truth took a backseat to entertainment. Instead, they got facts. Cold, hard facts.
The aftermath was swift. Within hours of the debate wrapping up, advertisers began pulling out faster than a politician dodging a tough question. One by one, they started distancing themselves from the event, and soon it became clear that ABC was in serious financial trouble.
The first to jump ship was a luxury car brand that had spent millions promoting their latest SUV during prime-time commercial breaks. “We didn’t pay for political correctness,” said a spokesperson who asked to remain anonymous. “We paid for drama, controversy, and high ratings. Fact-checking isn’t exactly good for business.”
Next, a major fast-food chain followed suit, declaring, “Our customers don’t come to us for the truth—they come for burgers and fries. We don’t need real-time fact-checking ruining their appetite.”
By the end of the week, five major advertisers, including a high-end fashion label and a beverage giant, had canceled their contracts, leaving ABC with a gaping $27 million hole in its budget. For a network accustomed to cushy ad revenue, this was nothing short of a financial catastrophe.
So, what exactly went wrong? Was it the fact-checking? The tension between candidates? The moderators’ desire to keep things grounded in reality?
Perhaps it was all of the above. Trump’s supporters, already suspicious of mainstream media, accused the moderators of bias, claiming that ABC had unfairly targeted the former president with their relentless corrections. On the other side, Harris’ supporters felt the moderators weren’t tough enough on Trump, leading to complaints that the debate had turned into a fact-checked sideshow.
In the end, no one was happy, except perhaps the fact-checkers themselves, who gleefully tallied the number of falsehoods spouted on stage. But in the world of TV ratings and advertising revenue, fact-checking has proven to be a disaster. It turns out that cold, hard truths don’t pay the bills.
With their finances in tatters and advertisers heading for the hills, ABC did the unthinkable: they swore off hosting future debates. In an official statement, a network spokesperson announced, “We’ve come to the conclusion that the current political climate is too hostile and, frankly, too expensive to continue hosting these events. The truth is, debates are a lose-lose situation. The candidates hate us, the viewers hate us, and the advertisers? Well, they’ve made it clear that they’d rather sponsor a reality show than a reality check.”
ABC’s decision to walk away from debates marks a dramatic shift in the world of televised politics. For decades, networks have battled for the rights to host these events, seeing them as prestigious opportunities to shape public discourse. But now, it seems, the cost of truth is just too high.
As the dust settles, it’s clear that advertisers are not interested in footing the bill for a debate that leaves them tangled in political fallout. One anonymous exec from a popular snack brand said, “People don’t tune into these debates for information—they tune in for the spectacle. We’re selling chips, not critical thinking.”
In a post-debate poll of advertisers, 78% said they would rather sponsor a cooking show or sports event than a political debate, citing the risk of alienating customers in an already divided nation. “Debates just aren’t good for business anymore,” one executive admitted. “It’s too risky. Half the country’s mad no matter what happens.”
Meanwhile, social media was ablaze with criticism. Some users applauded ABC’s fact-checking efforts, calling it a “long-overdue commitment to truth.” Others were less enthusiastic, with one viral tweet summing up the sentiment: “Just give us a debate where the candidates scream at each other without interruption. Is that too much to ask?”
So, where does this leave the future of political debates? If ABC’s move is any indication, the days of fact-checking and moderation may be coming to an end. Networks and advertisers alike seem more interested in high-octane drama than nuanced discussion. After all, controversy drives engagement—and engagement drives dollars.
In the wake of ABC’s announcement, rumors have started swirling that future debates could be hosted by networks less concerned with factual accuracy and more interested in pure entertainment value. One insider suggested that networks like Fox or even Netflix might step in, offering a “no rules” debate format where anything goes. “Who needs moderators when you can have an unscripted free-for-all?” they joked.
ABC’s decision to bow out of the debate business raises serious questions about the future of political discourse in America. Are we entering an era where facts no longer matter? Or is this simply a reflection of the broader entertainment-obsessed culture we live in?
One thing is for sure: debates will never be the same. And if advertisers have their way, the next time you tune in to watch two candidates spar, you might just find yourself watching an unscripted, fact-free spectacle designed to entertain rather than inform.
But hey, at least the chips and soda will still be flowing.
NOTE: This is SATIRE, Not True.
