I get what she's saying, but saying that Barack Obama stretches the truth to, doesn't really address the fundamental argument--that the media should check these mo-fos when they lie. It's true that telling people that a presidential candidate wants to teach sex-ed to five-year olds is pretty extreme, but that said If Barack is lying, check him too, The point isn't that the media should be harder on just McCain, it's that they should do their job with all candidates. Saying "Well the other guy does it to" isn't a "get of your job free" card.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Yes, but it does allow them to avoid responsibility for the continued moron-ization of American politics...
Can anyone tell me what use these people serve? I mean, I can go to the candidates web sites and read their talking points. I thought the point of watching the news was to be, you know, INFORMED.
Part of the problem is that there were a whole lot of things that happened for a whole bunch of non-partisan reasons that have timing that allows for Republicans to paint the job that journalists are doing as partisan.
For example: The Edwards Affair. He wasn't really in play anymore, he wasn't in the race, he had already given away his delegates, and no one really thought that he'd be picked for the VP slot. (Well, I didn't think that he would... he still smells like Kerry.)
Why would you run with this, let's face it, tabloid-level story? Well, the tabloids ran with it and, as it turns out, The People found the story fairly interesting... and it fits within a narrative of The Liberal Media Hiding Stories That Harm Democrats.
The Media then said something to the effect of "you want tabloid bullshit? You've got it!!! We're going to run the next tabloid bullshit story that shows up!!!"
Of course, the tabloid story is about Palin's daughter's pregnancy. This story has it all! Conservative hypocrisy! Abortion rights! Teenage pregnancy!
"Oh, so you won't run stories about Edwards but you will run stories about Republicans?"
And we've got yet another thing that fits the narrative of The Liberal Media Trying To Change The Outcome Of The Election.
The media examined Obama's wacky relationships a few months back and Obama came out the other side. Now the media is going over Palin... and the Republicans are screaming about how everybody is going over Palin with a fine-tooth comb but you don't see them going over Obama like that!!! Well, that's because the media already examined Obama back when it was Obama vs. Hillary (remember the primaries?) and they've run those stories.
But the timing is that the people who are only now showing up to watch the horse race (understandable that they might start showing up after the nominees are picked, after all) are only seeing Palin being asked about... which makes them ripe for the narrative of "the media didn't examine Obama to this degree!" when, yeah, the media did but it was back when Obama was about as fresh as Palin.
It's little more than bad timing.
I worry that swing voters will interpret the bad timing on the part of the media according to the narrative that the Republicans are shouting about because, yeah, it explains things as well as any grand conspiracy theory tends to.
I cancelled my local paper when their coverage of an important budget override debate was reduced to "some say our town has a very high percentage of families with children compared to neighboring towns :) ; others say this is not true :( ." There were all sorts of reasonable, numbers-based issues to address, and the only place those numbers showed up was in letters to the editors--that is, ordinary citizens went to the town offices and websites and looked up school enrollment, property tax rates, budgets, and so on, because no "reporter" could be bothered.
Now the national media, of whom I expect better (I still get the Globe, though admittedly my morning tea/comics/sodoku habit is a critical factor), is doing this. "Campaign A says the moon is made of green cheese; some say this is untrue and the moon is made of rock." There's an objective truth here, and if the media is too busy reporting on lipstick metaphors to bother reporting what the objective truth is, what do we need them for?
I normally like Candy Crowley too, because she a) usually asks good questions and b) isn't a blond bimbette up there to stoke ratings.
but she's off here. The problem is definitely that the media does not question the answers they are given. They never ever ever follow up. When I was a piddling reporter at my school's newspaper, my adviser always said, if you get an answer you didn't expect, follow up. I guess the media just expects to get lied to.
Have you really not discovered that what one side calls a "bold faced lie" the other side can back up with some facts and argument to make the case that it has truth to it?
How do you propose the media will spot all the lies? Isn't it plainly clear that partisanship + cognitive dissonance makes us more sensitive to lies from the guy we oppose than to lies from people on our side?
I'm not saying that they all lie and there's nothing we can do about it. But what I am saying is that many so-called lies that really tick one side of the other off are based on statements of fact that have been extended or extrapolated to the extreme conclusion to put either candidate in the worst light.
So while one side wants to take your guns away, the other side wants to much machine guns on the street to make you less safe.
Both are probably lies and both can probably be argued as somewhat accurate by either side.
The point is, it is not the media that gets the final say to call the candidate on it. I sure as hell don't want the media doing that either way. Save it for the op/ed pages and the opinion talk shows.
The media needs to report the facts and the people can see through to whatever version of the truth they prefer.
It's a maddening example of valuing "balance" over "accuracy." There's just no objective comparison between what Obama said and McCain's scurrilous lie about the sex education bill. But the media's compulsive need to achieve "balance" will leave many folks with the impression that it's a wash -- all politicians lie.
RE: Sam
There are numerous examples of bold-faced lies by the McCain campaign that are easily refuted by facts. "Thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere is clearly a lie, without question.
Claiming that Obama's tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class while McCain's would cut them is a lie. Hell, John McCain would tax employee provided health insurance.
To call a spade a spade is not to editorialize, it's to tell the truth. Sometimes this will mean pointing out a pattern of lying or deception on the part of a given candidate. Most people don't follow the news enough to pick up on these patterns themselves, and as a result, need figures in the news media to tell them about such a pattern. Calling out John McCain for being a liar is not opinion if he's lying through his teeth.
Sam: A bold argument for embracing post-modernism. But the facts normal citizens want the media to report are not just who said what talking point this week.
If one side's facts are wrong--whether George Bush or Joe Biden--then I expect that to be reported, and if they repeat the mistruth after being corrected I expect them to be called out as liars. Good reporting is not "Palin and McCain say she said "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere; others say she supported it." Go find out whether she supported it and whether her actions could reasonably be described as "saying thanks but no thanks," and get back to me.
It should be noted that Candy Crowley knew that John Kerry was an aloof elitist who couldn't connect to regular folks because she once witnessed him order green tea in a restaurant in Ohio.
mark f writes: "It should be noted that Candy Crowley knew that John Kerry was an aloof elitist who couldn't connect to regular folks because she once witnessed him order green tea in a restaurant in Ohio."
A lot of Crowley fans seem to assume that she must have some intellectual depth because she's ugly, so how else could she have gotten her job? But she seems to be going through the motions most of the time. I think she's lazy intellectually and not particularly interested in anything but her paycheck.
The point is the media should not be in the position of truth proclaimers who declare one thing a lie and another a fact.
If something is controversial, ask the candidate to explain themselves.
If a media type has an opinion, write an op/ed column.
But don't pass it off as fact, when it should be clear by now that both sides argue with their own set of facts and statistics.
So while it's a bold face lie that Sarah Palin opposed the bridge to nowhere it also doesn't square with the fact that she was given the money by Congress and told she could spend it on that if she wanted and then didn't.
I think we need to apply Crowley's approach to other aspects of our past and present. Why, for instance, do we continue to make a big deal about slavery and Jim Crow, when it's well-known that sometimes blacks are unkind to other blacks? And we're obsessed with demonizing the Nazis, even though in the Warsaw Ghetto there were appalling instances of Jews being abusive to other Jews, and do you have any idea what they did to German solidres during the Uprising? Lastly, because I could go on all day, all yu hear about it how CEOs make millions while workers suffer, but if anyone points out how workers sometimes shoot up their workplaces and kill fellow workers and (if they are truly depraved) their bosses, everyone gets all "tut-tut, what's that got to do with anything?"
You go, Candy.
RE: Sam
"So while it's a bold face lie that Sarah Palin opposed the bridge to nowhere it also doesn't square with the fact that she was given the money by Congress and told she could spend it on that if she wanted and then didn't."
You're parsing the facts. If the Bridge to Nowhere lie existed in a vacuum, you would be correct. The problem is that the lie is that Palin said "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge as part of her role as the great earmark slayer. Considering she took the money and spent it on other projects in Alaska, it is a bold-faced lie.
"The point is the media should not be in the position of truth proclaimers who declare one thing a lie and another a fact.
If something is controversial, ask the candidate to explain themselves."
Fact is fact, fiction is fiction. Sometimes there is no controversy. Everything you're saying is legitimizing the McCain campaign's layers of lies. When McCain is questioned about his lies, he either POW-POW-POWs or lies even more. So you're saying that the media should curl up in a ball, write an op-ed piece and hope that your average uninformed voter reads the Times? That's bullshit. They're here to inform us on what's going on; sometimes that means calling a spade a spade. And the Bridge to Nowhere is most certainly a spade.
Yeah, thanks but no thanks is a lie. Kindergarten sex ed is dishonest, but more ambiguous. The statute isn't very clear and exactly what the Illinois State Senate thought it was doing isn't very clear either. Taxes - there the defense would be that Obama might not do what he says he will. For instance, back in 1992 Clinton said he'd cut taxes on the middle-class while raising rates on the top brackets, just like Obama's doing now. But by the time the bill got through Congress there were no tax cuts because the deficit had gotten so big. That isn't much of a defense though.
Asher writes: "Kindergarten sex ed is dishonest, but more ambiguous. The statute isn't very clear and exactly what the Illinois State Senate thought it was doing isn't very clear either."
Oh come on. No one at any point thought they were drafting a law to teach 5 year olds how to fuck. But that's the lie - and it is a damn lie - that the McRovians put out there.
"Yeah, thanks but no thanks is a lie. Kindergarten sex ed is dishonest, but more ambiguous. The statute isn't very clear and exactly what the Illinois State Senate thought it was doing isn't very clear either. Taxes - there the defense would be that Obama might not do what he says he will. For instance, back in 1992 Clinton said he'd cut taxes on the middle-class while raising rates on the top brackets, just like Obama's doing now. But by the time the bill got through Congress there were no tax cuts because the deficit had gotten so big. That isn't much of a defense though."
Of course Obama might not follow through, but what we're talking about are policy proposals right now. McCain's proposal would raise taxes on the middle class. Obama's tax plan would cut them. Most likely, I think Obama will raise them on everybody, but I'm more comfortable with raising taxes at large to spend on social programs than I am to raising taxes on the middle class to fund McCain's deranged attempts to make up for Vietnam.
But, once again, all we're talking about right now are policy proposals, and by that token, McCain is in damn lie territory, as Obama's tax plan cuts taxes for the middle class while McCain's raises them. And, I'll add again, McCain would tax employer provided health care, likely reducing access. Lies, lies, lies.
Right again Mr. Coates! This is their recent meme excusing their piss poor job of policing the truth. That is their job after all, they should STFU and do it, on both sides of the aisle.
That Ill. bill is very close to the exact same program that the Cub and Boy Scouts of America instituted to combat sexual preditors in their adult leader ranks and the results of it are very impressive.
We are interested in helping children aren't we? Or just using them as political pawns?
Slightly off point but here is Fox news holding McCains people's feet to the fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FScnrvVfZE&eurl=http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/even-fox-news-calls-out-mccain-campaign.html?disqus_reply=2390646
Poor Candy is so bravely stupid a reporter that every time she opens her mouth you just want to say to the screen: "Bless your heart, Candy."
She and Mika Brzezinski are proof that there is some sort of affirmative action policy in effect at the cable news outlets to provide representation to the intellectually challenged community. They have nothing of value to add to any conversation about American politics, or about anything at all.
Sam H writes: "She and Mika Brzezinski are proof that there is some sort of affirmative action policy in effect at the cable news outlets to provide representation to the intellectually challenged community. They have nothing of value to add to any conversation about American politics, or about anything at all."
Today I saw my first clip of Mika Brzezinski as she slapped John McCain in the balls. I have no idea about the rest of her work, but based on that alone I'll say she can't be entirely useless.