The Internet is aghast at the news that during the US Presidential debates the moderator will not be allowed to fact-check the candidates in real time.
Given the power, scope, breadth, whatever, of the resources available to today's media, surely its not beyond the programme makers to create some flashy graphics to indicate the truthfulness of each speaker's assertions? In real time.
Facing facts, if they know it's going to happen, it'll keep the speakers honest, that's honest in a very real sense.
But would it be POPULAR television; will viewers tune in expecting a gladiatorial contest of epic proportions - or a showman muzzled by a need to stick to just the facts?
What would YOU rather watch?
There's a more important issue at stake here than flashy, exciting TV: if the debates are to be held at all, allowing the participants to say whatever they like, without any form of independent scrutiny, I have to ask what's the point?
Yes I do believe Donald Trump is an arse, a serial repeater of things so ridiculous that would ordinarily be laughed down, but which in this instance will be allowed to stand.
History will judge these things, but it's a shame they'll be allowed to shape it.