Star Tribune praises Washington Post article which says Bush ads lie

[Eric J in MN]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4808753.html

Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial

In the Milbank-VandeHei piece, one expert says the Bush campaign is so negative because it has no choice: "With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own."

But this "devil made me do it" defense is far too kind. The Bush family has always campaigned this way reflexively; it's what they do, along with smearing anyone who disagrees with them. Just consider the smears of the past year, of people like Ambassador Joe Wilson, counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, 9/11 commissioner Jamie Gorelick and ABC newsman Jeffrey Kofman (he's Canadian and he's gay, so don't believe his reports about low morale in Iraq).

Democracy, the old saying goes, is a contact sport. You expect vigorous give-and-take, and you allow for a certain amount of rhetorical spin. But blatant lies and smears are an attempt to undermine democracy by presenting Americans with a false choice, in this case with a false John Kerry. It will take journalism of the Milbank-VandeHei variety to ensure you understand that.

[billybob537]

1. FIRE the LIAR

[ThatPoetGuy]

2. Excellent article

The distinction between neutrality and objectivity is one that most reporters seem to have forgotten.

[Eric J in MN]

3. Here is the neutrality vs. ojectivitiy part

The difference between neutrality and objectivity is this: Neutrality requires that you give equal billing to people who say the earth is flat and those who say it is round. Objectivity allows you to point out the evidence that the flat-earth folks are wrong. In political reporting, neutrality stops at saying candidate X says this and candidate Y says that, without any attempt to explain who is right and who is wrong and in what degree.