Please read Blake Zeff's piece at BuzzFeed on three misconceptions about the relative "dirtiness" of the 2012 campaign. The pearl-clutching from the usual both-sides-do-it suspects (eg., Kaplan Daily's Dan "No" Balz, every "mainstream" new anchor and correspondent, and the raft of examples in Zeff's piece) invariably focuses on the trivial event, which is first seized upon and amplified by the media, then used by the same media to tut-tut the "negativity" and "triviality" of the campaign. But, let a truly negative, misleading attack occur on a more substantive issue, well, let's let Zeff tell us:
"When candidates attack the opponent on dogs or tax returns, the negativity refs get their backs up and blow the whistle. But distort the other’s position on, say, welfare, or Medicare, and there’s typically less condemnation. Look at the stories linked to in this article, for example, and you’ll see far less (if any) umbrage taken toward policy deceptions, as if the fact that it’s a policy 'debate' automatically makes it a high-minded discussion."
We have yet to see a sustained takedown in the media of Willard "Romney Hood" Romney's blatantly false ads accusing the Obama Administration of robbing Medicare of over $700 billion, or of the fraud that is the Romney/ Ryan/ Rethuglican "budget plan," or of the systematic attempts to suppress the right to vote of Americans inclined to vote Democratic. Of course, should we ever see such takedowns, they will have to be balanced by "both-sides-do-it" examples for the Democrats.
BONUS: Charles P. Pierce amplifies and expands on what the Rethugs are about, and how the fearful media play into their hands.
BONUS II: E.J. Dionne chimes in.
