It is very very hard to tell if this "News-in-Brief" piece from The Onion is satire:
DENVER—Following Wednesday's presidential debate, Mitt Romney’s performance was hailed as “dominant” and “potentially game-changing” by a near unanimous consensus of political commentators who were still trying to figure out where exactly the Republican nominee stood on the issues and what specific policies, if any, he espoused. “Mitt Romney was very strong up there, and there’s no doubt he made an effective, compelling case to the nation’s undecided voters,” said NBC News correspondent Chuck Todd, who was, if anything, more at a loss as to what health care, job creation, tax policy, education, deficit reduction, and financial regulation would look like under a Romney presidency after the debate than he was before it began. “Romney came across as very presidential tonight. If he can ride this momentum for the rest of the campaign, he has a real shot at taking the White House.” Analyzing President Obama’s performance, pundits agreed that the man who articulated a sober plan of measured steps and shared sacrifice to ensure the nation’s future prosperity had a “tough road” ahead of him if he hoped to match Romney in the next debate.
On this note, it's somewhat amusing to hear people wonder what effect, if any, fact checking will have on the outcome of the debate. Here's Paul Glastris from the Washington Monthly:
the real question is whether, over the next few days, the story in the press remains Romney’s “superior” performance, or the mendacity behind that performance.
The real question is why this question is secondary.