"Journalism isn't equipped to deal with a campaign predicated entirely on falsehoods"

[KurtNYC]

Indeed, with reality in mind, just about everyone -- Democrats, Republicans, reporters, editors, fact-checkers, policy wonks -- is well aware of the fact that Romney's blatantly lying. It is as demonstrably dishonest as any claim ever aired by a major-party presidential candidate -- it's not spinning details; it's not hiding in gray areas; it's just making up garbage to deceive the public. Worse, the racial subtext of the disgusting smear only adds insult to injury, raising questions anew about Romney's character and just how far he'll go to acquire power.

What's more, to reiterate a point from last week, if Obama were as awful a president as Romney claims, the Republican attack machine wouldn't have to make stuff up -- the truth would be so brutal that voters would recoil and flock to the GOP candidate naturally. What does it say about Romney's strength as a candidate that he has to make up garbage and hope voters don't know the difference?
...
So why does Romney keep repeating the lie? Because he thinks voters are idiots and he's certain political journalism isn't equipped to deal with a campaign predicated entirely on falsehoods.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/20/13376256-the-post-truth-campaign-continues-apace

Great piece by Steve Benen at Maddow blog.

[Sinistrous]

1. An excellent screed,

too bad Mr. Benen is singing to the choir.

[spanone]

2. it's worse. there is no journalism.

[valerief]

5. My first thought, too. nt

[Fumesucker]

3. When journalism boils down to; opinions differ, both sides do it, we'll have to leave it there..

Then yes, it's not equipped to deal with a campaign predicated entirely on falsehoods.

[Spike89]

4. Journalism isn't opinion shows

Television isn't equipped for a fully dishonest campaign, maybe. There is lots of very good journalism out there, but you'll rarely find it on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. and only a bit more on CBS, NBC, and ABC news programs. The cable channels don't even claim to be doing news, they just hope people think they do.
The networks don't have the time or the desire to cover the lies and explain the reality--it takes too much time and isn't visual enough to fit into their tight windows. But then, television news has never been good at most aspects of news.
Newspapers, magazines, and some of the better internet sites do have some solid reporting--you just need to wade through all the pundit-generated crap to find it online.
The truth is that people first became accustomed to having the news fed to them in small little chunks back when the network news programs were competing with newspapers. Then, with the cable expansion, TV news stopped competing with newspapers and started competing with all the entertainment and quasi-news shows. That is all we have left on television, snappy pundits spinning the events of the day and a few sad shells of once proud organizations trying to remain relavent.
The newspapers can and do provide details, but they are suffering for audiences and ultimately, the resources to provide what they do best--report complex stories. Many have simply given up and have become little more than elaborate print versions of the entainment pundit shows on TV.
However, even though the market has changed, there are still people checking facts, digging into old archives, and putting the stories out there. They may be too often ignored and harder to find, than they were 30 years ago, but there are plenty of good journalists around.

[Bandit]

7. Just because a person has an obvious bias doesn't mean they are not a good journalist

I believe Rachel is probably the best journalist on TV. She is adamant her reporting is based entirely upon fact and does an incredible amount of research before she reports on any subject..She is a political journalist, and her entire show is about politics. That does not make her a bad journalist. I would defy anyone to name a better journalist and explain why they think so.. I consider Lawrence O'Donnell to be another good journalist as well.

[Spike89]

10. I have a narrower view of what a journalist is

I actually enjoy Rachel and Lawrence, but they are entertainers in my opinion. They also spend almost all their time analyzing and commenting on events. They do back their opinions with fact and do maintain consistent standards, but neither of them is primarily focused on delivering the facts.
I do think that having an obvious bias does harm your ability to be a good journalist. Having to also be an entertainer further hampers a journalist in my opinion. I do think Rachel and Lawrence have excellent journalists on staff, their opinions are generally very well backed up, but their shows are both doubly filtered (ideologically and aesthetically). Not to mention that because of the economics of television, corporate sponsorship is unduly influential.

[eomer]

6. But it is, like a sewer main is equipped to deal with crap.

It is designed for efficient delivery of crap, that's its purpose.

[KurtNYC]

9. It is the "Circus" part of Bread and Circuses.

But I think the best parts of the Benen piece touch on the challenge for those who ARE trying to cover the Romney campaign in an even-handed way.

[Ganja Ninja]

8. "he thinks voters are idiots"

Well some are. Some are willing to accept lies because they've accepted them for years. They've stared disaster in the face and denied it was happening let alone it was their fault. They've seen their favorite politicians doubling down in the face of failure so many times they're numb to it. They've blocked out reality no matter how damaging because it's easier for them to maintain their right wing bubble of existence than it is to face rejection from their friends, family and churches.

[D23MIURG23]

11. Your headline is speculation about what Rmoney thinks, not the actual limitations of journalism.

Its also a completely senseless statement. If one lie can be fact checked then 100 lies can be fact checked, and most campaign claims are fairly easy to fact-check with the internet being what it is.

If Rmoney fabricates a massive number of his claims, they can be put into a table or expressed as a fraction of his total campaign claims, and be reported in aggregate, rather than separately.

The question is whether anyone beyond Rachel Maddow will find Rmoney's fabrication campaign interesting enough to comment on.

[KurtNYC]

12. Sounds like you didn't make it beyond the headline.

Here is the article:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/20/13376256-the-post-truth-campaign-continues-apace

Many have cited the Romney campaigns strategy so I'm not sure where you would get the idea that Rachel Maddow is alone on this. For starters, Rachel Maddow didn't write this piece or the headline that I used.

Romney's continuous lies are a challenge even for his supporters because they have no idea what they are voting for.

[D23MIURG23]

13. I did make it past the headline; otherwise I wouldn't have know what the headline meant in context.

The headline was a line from the article.

I didn't have a problem with the rest of the article.

If other media people are going after Rmoney for formulating his campaign claims, then so much the better. Its been my impression that usually when I see him called out for this sort of thing, it is being done by Maddow or a contributor on her blog, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening in other places.