 My final clip was one I picked because A, there's a direct call out of Donald Trump, which harkens back to the beginning of our discussion and B, there's discussion of the national debt, which I've come to view as an increasingly concerning topic and it was at least brought up a few times here. Where's Joe Biden? He's completely missing in action from leadership. And you know who else is missing in action? Donald Trump is missing in action. He should be on this stage tonight. He owes it to you to defend his record where they added $7.8 trillion to the debt. That set the stage for the inflation that we have. We don't get any answers because Joe Biden hides in his basement and won't answer as to why he's raising the debt the way he's done. And Donald Trump be hides behind the walls of his golf clubs and won't show up here to answer questions like all the rest of us are up here to answer. He put $7 trillion on the debt. He should be in this room to answer those questions. And I wanna look at that camera right now and tell you, Donald, I know you're watching. You can't help yourself. I know you're watching, okay? And you're not here tonight, not because of polls and not because of your indictments. You're not here tonight because you're afraid of being on the stage and defending your record. You're ducking these things. And let me tell you what's gonna happen. You keep doing that. No one up here is gonna call you Donald Trump anymore. We're gonna call you Donald Duck. He's so proud, he's so satisfied. Yeah, let's just look at that for a second. The self-satisfaction, it's off the charts. That line is so lame and groan-inducing and it has been in every debate clip roundup I have seen after the debate. It has achieved exactly what he intended for it to achieve. And I think he knew that it was a total groaner and he also knew that it would be at the top of the hour in the montage on CNN every hour and it has been. I give Chris Christen credit for pure entertainment value. He's 10 out of 10 on both of these debates. That also brought this moment which you pointed, you were tweeting about this morning, Josh, that New York Times fact check was prompted by this Christie statement that Joe Biden hides in his basement. This is false. Any comments on the New York Times fact check? I hate fact checking because the temptation that the fact checkers always succumb to is they go beyond factual claims and they talk about, well, this was analysis and was it good analysis? Or did this lack important context and things that are ultimately judgment calls? And I think in fairness to the New York Times, they're not so much correcting the literal statement. They're not being like he's not in his basement. What they're saying is, well, they're saying Joe Biden doesn't go out and do stuff but he does go out and do stuff and he traveled to all these countries. When you say Joe Biden is hiding in his basement, you mean he's not out in public as much as he should be and you mean that the White House is trying to control his public appearances in a way to minimize spontaneity and minimize the number of questions he's gonna face because they're afraid of what'll happen if he goes off script. And those are ultimately, those are not factual claims. Those are opinion, an opinion of how much, how many interviews the president should give, how many events outside the White House he should do. There's no right or there's no fact about that. And so ultimately what this, from the New York Times is basically, ultimately defending the idea that the Biden is out there enough, which I think partly is a weird thing to do as a media outlet when one of the key aspects of Biden's strategy has been that he does very few interviews, many fewer interviews than presidents before him have typically done. But it's not even so much about whether the Times's analysis on that is right or wrong. It's that they shouldn't be doing that analysis at all. It's a question for voters, whether they think that Joe Biden is out there as much as he should be. And that's obviously what Chris Christie was arguing about there. Yeah, I mean, the fact checking industry or complex seems to have taken a pretty big hit in credibility over the past several years. Do you think there's sort of a path back for that whole framework? Well, it's not clear to me what the usefulness of it is to begin with. I mean, I think it's, people have been driven nuts over the last eight years by people thinking things that are wrong. And some of that is like cancel culture and trying to restrict opinions, but some of it is literally about things that are wrong. That there's been a lot of prominent conspiracy theorizing and a lot of nonsense claims about Donald Trump really won the election and that sort of thing, things that are actually incorrect. And it drives a lot of, especially liberals crazy and it drives a lot of reporters crazy. And they're not entirely wrong about it, but just sort of grabbing people by the shoulders and being like, I'm going to give you the real facts now is not a strategy that's working in part because the sort of people who are bothering to read the New York Times live stream about the debate are not even the audience that they really need to reach if they're trying to disabuse people of false factual notions. So I would, if I had a fact check arm at my news outlet, I would just shut it down. If you know, the most of what appears in fact checks is stuff that can just appear in a news story format. And sometimes even when you have a fact check that's really not about facts, it's an analysis about what the context for this ought to have been. You could repackage that as an article and often it would be an informative, interesting article and you just lose the distracting frame where you're claiming to be setting straight some fact. Thanks for watching our conversation with Josh Barrow. You can watch the full conversation here or another clip right here.