I was immediately reminded today why television news is so ripe for abuse: it’s fleeting nature.

I just saw a hit piece on the the US Conference of Mayors list of “ready to go” infrastructure projects on Anderson Cooper’s show.  Now, I’m sure that there are some projects listed out of the 11,300 that are a little foolish (I haven’t reviewed them all) but the piece went on in an incredulous tone about the “pork” projects upgrading “museums” and “zoos” and “parks,” as if none of these things could possibly have any merit at all (god forbid that my (future) kid actually be excited to go to the new museum where he can learn).

I wanted to write a more detailed blog post about it, but I was instantly hampered by the fact that I couldn’t quote what this investigative reporter chick-they-forced-to-read-the-600-page-document had said.  So here I sit, unable to lead an effective takedown of this unknown investigative reporter chick.  This is why it’s so easy to go on TV and say whatever the hell you want.  It’s there in a fleeting moment, and some people might see it, and call you on it, but you can pretty much effectively deny it ever happened.  Luckily, we have Youtube now, which stops the more egregious abuses, but the problem still remains.

It’s not like that in print.  You are way more accountable for what you write, because it’s there for people to stare at, double-check, and read over and over again.  It’s there 3 months later, when the exact opposite of what you said would happen, happens.  It moderates your tone, because you know it can be thrown back in your face.

Blogs are the ultimate media because they combine instant availability with maximum accountability.  They are simultaneously fleeting and durable.  A veritable best of both worlds.

So, moral of the story?  Read.  Mostly blogs.  Not to few.

(Suck on that one, Michael Pollan.)

Question:

MR. SCHIEFFER: All right.

We’re going to move to another question. And the topic is leadership in this campaign. Both of you pledged to take the high road in this campaign. Yet it has turned very nasty. Senator Obama, your campaign has used words like erratic, out of touch, lie, angry, losing his bearings — (audio break). Senator McCain, your commercials have included words like disrespectful, dangerous, dishonorable, he lied. Your running mate said he palled around with terrorists.

Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say, to each other’s face, what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?

Dangerous = erratic.  Dishonorable = out of touch.  Palling around with terrorists = losing his bearings.

This is complete horseshit.  This absolute love affair with equivalence in political reporting must end.  It must.  Sometimes one side really is worse than the other.  I mean, it is actually conceivable that one campaign might actually be more negative and ridiculous than the other, right?  There isn’t some awesome Balancing God out there that reaches down with a guiding hand and automatically enforces the Equally Negative Corollary in American politics, is there?  So, you know, there might actually be a time when one side is actually worse than the other.  In fact, the American people seem to have formulated an opinion on this subject.  Let’s take a look:

The survey was conducted after McCain and running mate Sarah Palin had hit Obama for days for his relationship with William Ayers, a 1960s radical who’s now a Chicago university professor and whose ties to Obama are slight.

Voters noticed the attacks: Fifty-three percent said that McCain was engaging in more attacks; 30 percent said Obama was.

HOLY SHIT!  ONE GUY IS MORE NEGATIVE THAN THE OTHER!  OMG!

Btw, I just saw CNN snap poll results:  Who spent more time attacking his opponent?  M 80% O 7%.

This false equivalency is a disease.  It’s a disease that has been utilized by President Bush specifically, and conservatives in general.  This is the disease that wrought “enhanced interrogation techniques” and “serve at the pleasure of the President.”  Sometimes one side lies way more than the other.  Way more.  And to treat them as the same does a serious disservice to the American public.

In fact what this disservice sows is the false equivalency argument in lunch table discussions.  I have a new political theory that I have sort of been developing this year, and it’s based on the fact that people need to be able to defend their candidate.  They need to be able to sit with their cooworkers and be able to easily remember the talking points and not be embarrassed by their candidate at work.  (More on this later, maybe this weekend)  But more specifically to this topic, is that it breeds a whole class of false equalizers.  These are the guys that go “Well, both sides are really to blame here”  or “All politicians lie” or “I don’t think either candidate has really given any specifics.”  You know, there may actually be a time when this stuff is true, but most of the time it’s a giant fucking cop out.  This is an exercise in laziness.  It’s the “Well, I don’t actually want to spend the time figuring out who has the better plan or who’s been more negative, so I’m going to attempt to sound like an intellectual by taking no one’s side.”  To me, this is worse than being a wingnut, because at least they try to inform themselves (it’s all wrong, but they try).

So basically my message is:  Do your homework.  Grow some balls.  Make a decision.