Following an eventful 90 minutes during which ABC moderators tried their best to fact-check Donald Trump’s array of colorful claims in real-time, the network was hit with a public outcry so severe that even their carefully planned PR strategy crumbled faster than a debate about healthcare policy. Between accusations of bias from Trump supporters and complaints from others about excessive moderation, ABC’s top brass apparently decided that the only way to solve their image problem was to fire everyone.

“We thought fact-checking would be appreciated,” a network executive reportedly said as they cleared out their office, “but, well, turns out we were dead wrong. In retrospect, we should have just let them yell at each other uninterrupted. The American people love a good fight. Who knew?”

It all started with what was supposed to be the political showdown of the century: the much-hyped Trump vs. Harris debate. Hosted by ABC, the event promised to deliver the kind of high-stakes drama that America had come to expect from the 2024 election cycle. What viewers got, however, was something entirely different—a fact-checking marathon that made the moderators seem more like exhausted referees in a wrestling match than neutral mediators of a civil discourse.

As Trump went off-script, launching into his usual claims that Democrats were planning to “execute babies after birth” and that Ohio immigrants were engaged in a “pet barbecue” ring, moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis did their best to keep the debate grounded in reality. They corrected Trump on everything from immigration policies to economics, but the constant interruptions began to resemble a parental scolding session more than a presidential debate.

By the time Harris managed to get a word in edgewise—though noticeably less fact-checked herself—it was already clear that the night was veering off the rails.

Within minutes of the debate’s conclusion, social media exploded. The hashtags #BoycottABC and #FakeNewsNetwork trended faster than anyone could have anticipated, with Trump supporters accusing the network of stifling free speech. Even those who leaned left weren’t pleased, with some viewers arguing that the moderators failed to hold Harris equally accountable, or, worse, that the debate was simply unwatchable due to the excessive interruptions.

Caught between two angry mobs, ABC was left scrambling. No amount of PR damage control could contain the uproar, and before long, advertisers began pulling out of future programming. Facing a wave of public outrage that made the Hindenburg look like a small campfire, ABC executives convened an emergency meeting to figure out how to save the network’s reputation. And that’s when they decided that the best course of action was to wipe the slate clean—by firing every single person employed by the network.

“It was an all-hands-on-deck situation, so we figured no hands left on deck was the solution,” said one former ABC executive. “It’s not personal. Well, it is personal, but it’s also survival. Our reputation was at stake, and letting people go is the easiest way to show the public we mean business.”

ABC’s mass firing wasn’t just a culling of the newsroom—it was a network-wide sweep. The entire staff, from veteran anchors to junior producers, was let go without warning. Even those who had nothing to do with the debate—such as the janitorial staff and cafeteria workers—found themselves with pink slips by the end of the day.

“I was just here to make sure the floors were clean and the snacks were stocked,” said one cafeteria worker, clutching a bag of leftover pretzels as they left the ABC building for the last time. “But I guess in today’s media landscape, even refilling the coffee machine is political.”

Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis were among the first to be axed, despite their valiant attempts to keep the debate on track. “We did what we thought was right,” Muir was overheard saying as he packed up his framed Emmy awards. “But in the end, I guess facts don’t pay the bills.”

Now, with an empty newsroom and a network in crisis, ABC executives are already brainstorming new ways to avoid future backlash. One bold idea? Ditch moderators altogether.

“We’re considering a ‘no moderation’ format for future debates,” said an unnamed ABC executive. “Just two candidates on stage, no one to fact-check or interrupt, and a 90-minute free-for-all. The public clearly doesn’t want us meddling, so why not give them what they want: chaos, unfiltered.”

Another potential plan involves outsourcing future debates to artificial intelligence, thus ensuring that no human will ever be held responsible for interrupting a candidate’s pet-related conspiracy theory. “We could have chatbots ask the questions, maybe throw in some fun GIFs to keep things interesting,” the executive mused. “And, best of all, the bots won’t care if they get fired afterward.”

The public response to ABC’s decision to fire its entire staff has been as divided as the reactions to the debate itself. Some conservative commentators applauded the move, arguing that the network had been “corrupted” by liberal bias and was long overdue for a house-cleaning.

“Finally, accountability in the media,” one right-wing pundit tweeted. “Let this be a lesson to all networks that there are consequences for disrespecting Trump.”

Meanwhile, progressive voices criticized ABC for not taking a more nuanced approach to addressing the backlash. “Firing the entire staff doesn’t solve anything,” wrote one liberal commentator. “It just proves that networks are willing to sacrifice their employees to save face. What we need is better media, not fewer journalists.”

And then there were those in the middle, left wondering how a simple debate could lead to such drastic consequences. “So, wait—they fired everyone because of Twitter complaints?” asked one bewildered viewer. “Maybe we should just stop having debates altogether.”

With its entire staff gone, ABC is now in uncharted territory. The network, which once prided itself on journalistic excellence, is now facing an existential crisis. Will it rebuild from scratch with a new team of fresh faces, or will it pivot to something entirely different—like reality TV, where facts are optional and outrage is profitable?

Only time will tell whether ABC can recover from this latest debacle, but one thing is certain: in the age of fact-free debates and internet-fueled outrage, no network is safe from the firing squad.

And for the rest of the media world, the lesson is clear—don’t bother fact-checking. Just let the candidates talk, and let Twitter decide who’s telling the truth.

NOTE: This is SATIRE, not real News.