Liberal Bias B.S.

Checking the Facts, in Advance

The first part of Paul Krugman's column today does something that needed to be done long ago: It catalogs the lies Bush continues to tell during his stump speech and during the debates. But since all evidence I have indicates that I'm preaching to the choir about that, I'll instead point out that Krugman says something more important at the close of his column:

By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.

The emphasis is mine.

This is exactly what the major media outlets need to hear three weeks out from the election--and they need to hear it not just from Krugman but from anyone with a voice loud enough to be heard. Our democracy cannot survive if the media fails in its responsibility to help the public learn and understand the truth. By passing along Bush's prevarications without comment, or by trying, after a debate, to "truth squad" an equal number of slips by each candidate, journalists are letting Bush get away with mass deception.

I think they do it because they're afraid of being called biased in favor of liberals. Isn't it worse to aid and abet those you dislike in an effort to appear "fair and balanced"--especially when those whose opinions are on the other end of the scale claim that moniker but not the behavior that should go with it? If the media could drag out the "Gore stretches the truth" story in 2000 based on a misquote about inventing the Internet, it can certainly run with a "Bush can't tell the truth" story in 2004 based on the fact that, well, he really can't tell the truth. That kind of journalism would do the public more good than these ass-covering truth squads they've run after the debates to appear impartial. Honest reporting is impartial. They should try it.