Yes, you heard that right. The once-respected news anchors, known for their cool professionalism and journalistic integrity, are now being thrown out of the hallowed halls of ABC like last week’s trending hashtags. Their crime? Fact-checking Donald Trump and occasionally asking Kamala Harris a question or two. It seems that in today’s media landscape, truth-telling has become the fastest route to unemployment.

It all started innocently enough. Muir and Davis, tasked with moderating the debate between Trump and Harris, decided that this time, they’d do something a little different. Instead of nodding politely while the candidates spewed half-truths, outright lies, and questionable anecdotes about Springfield, Ohio’s pet situation, the moderators took it upon themselves to fact-check the candidates—in real-time.

Bold move, right? Apparently too bold.

Throughout the 90-minute spectacle, Trump, as expected, hit the stage with his usual flair for storytelling. Whether he was waxing poetic about Democrats “executing babies after birth” or describing how migrants were allegedly turning America’s pets into a buffet, Trump’s performance was, shall we say, creatively untethered to reality.

Muir, in a moment that will surely go down in fact-checking history, stopped the debate dead in its tracks to inform viewers that no, there was no state in the U.S. where post-birth baby executions are legal. And no, Springfield’s immigrant community is not engaged in a clandestine culinary war on household pets. To the reasonable viewer, these clarifications might seem helpful—necessary, even.

But according to ABC News executives, this “helpful” behavior is precisely what led to Muir and Davis’s unceremonious exit.

In a scathing memo that was somehow both formal and dripping with disdain, ABC explained its decision to terminate Muir and Davis: “Moderators are meant to guide the debate, not embarrass candidates by calling out falsehoods. The American public deserves to hear both sides—truth and fiction—without interference. David Muir and Linsey Davis crossed a line when they decided to turn their role as moderators into that of participant, and that is simply unacceptable.”

The memo continued: “Fact-checking in real-time creates an unfair advantage for the truth, and that is not what we stand for at ABC.”

The news, of course, sent shockwaves through the journalistic community. After all, Muir and Davis were widely regarded as two of the most respected faces in American journalism. But ABC’s decision was clear: Truth-telling has no place in the chaotic world of presidential debates.

Meanwhile, Trump’s camp could hardly contain its glee at the firing of the moderators. Donald Trump Jr. took to X (formerly Twitter) faster than his dad could say “rigged debate,” writing, “Finally! The hack moderators who ganged up on my father have been FIRED. Justice has been served!”

Megyn Kelly, now a conservative podcaster, also chimed in, calling the firing “long overdue” and accusing Muir and Davis of conducting the “worst anchor pile-on I’ve ever seen.” For the record, this is the same Megyn Kelly who famously clashed with Trump during the 2016 election. But hey, politics makes for strange bedfellows.

In light of Muir and Davis’s dismissal, industry insiders are already speculating about what the future of debate moderation will look like. One source close to the situation hinted at a new network policy: “Let Them Speak Their Truths.” Under this revolutionary new format, moderators will be instructed not to fact-check candidates at all, instead allowing the candidates’ “truths” to be heard without interference.

“Who’s to say hat’s true anymore, anyway?” the source said, shrugging. “Maybe Springfield really is a hotbed of pet-eating chaos. Who are we to judge?”

ABC executives are reportedly in talks with several new moderators to replace Muir and Davis—figures who understand the delicate art of nodding solemnly while facts fly out the window. Rumor has it that Fox News’s Sean Hannity and The View’s Joy Behar are both on the shortlist, a duo sure to bring balance and tact to the next debate. (Or, at the very least, ensure that no one learns anything new.)

Naturally, the internet had a field day with the news of Muir and Davis’s firing. #FireTheFactCheckers trended for hours after the announcement, with some users sarcastically praising ABC for “finally embracing the chaos.” One viral post read, “Honestly, I watch these debates for the entertainment value, not for boring facts. Kudos to ABC for keeping things spicy!”

Others, however, weren’t so thrilled. “ABC just fired two of the best journalists on television because they told the truth,” tweeted one user. “Is this where we are now?”

Even Elon Musk jumped into the conversation, posting, “ABC proves once again: reality is optional.”

While ABC execs might be patting themselves on the back for restoring “balance” to the debate stage, Muir and Davis are unlikely to disappear quietly into the night. Both journalists have built careers on integrity and fact-based reporting—qualities that, apparently, are no longer desirable in the world of televised politics.

In a joint statement, Muir and Davis expressed disappointment in ABC’s decision but vowed to continue their commitment to the truth. “We stood by our principles,” they said. “If that makes us a disgrace to our profession, then so be it.”

Rumors are already swirling that the duo might team up for a new podcast called “Fact-Check This,” where they’ll be free to call out political lies without fear of retribution from network brass. And who knows? With the way things are going, maybe they’ll be the next big thing on YouTube, fact-checking debates live while the actual moderators sit back and sip tea.

ABC’s decision to fire Muir and Davis may have been shocking, but it’s also emblematic of a broader trend in today’s media landscape: the death of accountability. In a world where “alternative facts” have become a staple of political discourse, the role of debate moderators has shifted from fact-finders to silent observers, tasked only with ensuring that both candidates have ample time to mislead the public equally.

As Muir and Davis pack up their offices and prepare for the next chapter in their careers, one can’t help but wonder: Is this the end of informed debates? Or are we simply witnessing the rise of a new era—one where facts are optional, and the loudest voice wins?