(09-21-2017, 07:37 AM)homebiscuit Wrote:

(09-20-2017, 03:43 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: That's an interesting and arguable point, but not relevant to what I said.  Do you disagree with my statement above? 

"Every politician should be fact checked as much as possible, and we ought to be able to admit it when they are intentionally misleading people.  We should not let our partisanship get in the way of the truth."  Agree or disagree?

I completely agree, but the FACT of the matter is that it's selectively applied. Journalism is critical for democracy. Unfortunately the self-imposed standards of the press in the U.S. have turned it from a fourth estate into a fifth column. They've undermined their own credibility by leveraging idealism over infallibility. Standing on your soapbox while making noble proclamations about the truth is only aping the censor when applied inequitably.

Okay, you and I completely agree that politicians should be truth-checked as much as possible.   So it must follow that what they are doing to Trump with the truth checking is okay.   The problem you have is that you don't think they applied the same standard to Obama.   But that's a different issue.  

Personally, I think the difference in the way the press treats Trump is less a result of a double-standard, and more the result of the incredible volume of lies that come out of his mouth.  They can't avoid truth checking him, because that's their job.  If a politician tells a lie, the press has a duty to provide the facts that reveal the lie.   If they failed to do enough truth-checking on Obama, that would be bad, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't truth-check Trump, because as you and I agree, they should truth check everybody as much as possible.

---