Campbell Brown gave an interview to the New York Times about a week ago--a few days after she cried Wolf for Sexism in a lame attempt to nab some attention for herself. The below quote from Campbell quote struck FEAR in me:

----------From NYTimes:
“As journalists, and certainly for me over the last few years, we’ve gotten overly obsessed with parity, especially when we’re covering politics,” Ms. Brown said. “We kept making sure each candidate got equal time — to the point that it got ridiculous in a way.”
“So when you have Candidate A saying the sky is blue, and Candidate B saying it’s a cloudy day, I look outside and I see, well, it’s a cloudy day,” she said. “I should be able to tell my viewers, ‘Candidate A is wrong, Candidate B is right.’ And not have to say, ‘Well, you decide.’ Then it would be like I’m an idiot. And I’d be treating the audience like idiots.”
Also, this quote:
“You’re not going to see me ever be partisan. I’ll never take a position on a candidate or an issue.”
---------------------------------------------
Wow that all sounds so pure and good. But it is palaver and sophistry.

First off, Brown knows perfectly well that WHAT journos CHOOSE to cover and HOW is partisan. ( E.g.: No Acorn, no problem; Troopergate, big fun.)
To say political journos are obsessed with Parity these days is laughable times a thousand! Femisex has shown over and over on this site examples of how little regard for parity exists when the candidate is Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. (Those who continue to disown this fact have brains so tethered to unreality that there is little to no hope.)

Now an example of parity in journalism that is oft cited is the issue of global warming and its causes. When 10 say yes, global warming is Man-Made, and one says not so, Campbell doesn’t seem to know what to do about this--a parity issue. Do u give 10 grafs to the not man-made side and 10 grafs to the man-made side? Hmmm, poor Cambell, here’s a bit of help for you, my dear sweetie. You do ur job in reporting out the story, from a position of non-bias, perhaps even education if ur a journo with background in the issue, as this helps you to ask intelligent questions. Then you see what you’ve got and if the scale is tipped so far in one direction or another, and if the folks u chose were =ly qualified as experts and not affiliated with any activists groups, then you can certainly give more grafs to the man-made position.

Think of the smoking and cancer conundrum, way back, when the studies started out more even-Steven (maybe smoking causes cancer, maybe it does not) and then started to shift heavily toward the oh yeah for sure there is a causative connection btw smoking and lung cancer. Thus…..When ur reporting shows a certain tipping point is reached, u as a journalist may tip your parity in that direction. But as long as there is credible evidence to the contrary you must continue to give that evidence or pushback, granting it the amount of space that ur reporting shows it deserves. OK! Got it?

(BTW, even when the scales show global warming is man-made, reporters still need to be curious enough to dig into questions such as….will such man-made warming fend off a cyclical ice-age the planet would probably have coming?, even as the warming chokes and melts our planet? Where’s that tipping point btw fending off an ice age and ruin from man-made warming? I’m not taking a position, but being curious, as all good and informed reporters Should be. Remember there are always good questions to ask…even when it is easy not to, even when the story seems set in plaster, as evidenced by the story on hormone replacement therapy and women—a story told as the final word, when if fact the words were just starting! )

Ok so the next…thing for our Campbell journo 101 lesson is the LIE issue.

Campbell says she as a journo should be able to tell readers when a lie is a lie is lie. Campbell says she wants to stand up and say Hey this is a LIE! , end of story. Hmmmm?....Why have journos at all? Why have reporters give us the facts and let us make up our minds what is or is not a lie. Why, when we could simply have Campbell do her stage make-up and hair and get in front of the cameras and say: Liar Liar Pants on Fire.

Campbell surely knows that what is a lie is often up for dispute these days as journalists are often keen to say that the Candidate they favor is a truth-teller and visa versa. Femisex showed as much last week in our piece New York Times Tells Bald Lies.

(Apparently, the New York Times, is as unrepentant as poor Bill Ayers, b/c Paul Krugman repeated the exact same lies in his column “Blizzard of Lies.”)

What is horridly sad is that in his column Krugman--after lying to readers about Obama’s sex-ed plan and that Palin and McCain were never called a Pig and Smelly Old Fish by the One—also bemoans the need for “balanced” journalism practices:

-----------------Krugman:
“Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.”
------------------------------------------

Campbell take note: Here’s what Krugman is saying: we journos need to be allowed to tell our readers something is a lie, when its not.

More plainly…Krugman says journos need to be able to tell lies straight out when it suits their personal political purpose! Krugman NEVER ran a column on Obama’s Blizzard of Lies that were indeed lies, as reported in the very pages of the Times.

Obama’s Blizzard of Lies were IN FACT lies and smears, yet Krugman is silent on this but says he should be trusted to tell readers McCain is lying, when in doing so is a big fat lie.

So here’s the take away Campbell. Parity is a responsibility. Give readers the facts. If you do and don’t withhold facts to suit your personal political purposes then readers are smart enough to know when lies are lies.

Readers also have come to learn in this election that a reporter’s truth is often Murky.

Instead, what both Campbell and Krugman propose is that readers are just not smart enough to figure out who’s lying. Like children we need the Press to Filter what we hear and then tell us what we think.

But Femisex says NO!
If honest reporting is done, if parity is truly given as outlined above, if the straight-up facts are given, given even against the candidate you favor (be “you” Fox, or the New York Times) if u do investigative journalism against both candidates (yes, even the one u favor) if u report =ly on candidates lies ….on Biden’s sniper fire lies as on Hillary’s sniper fire lies…on Obama's stem cell lies and " he was just a guy in the hood" lie...on Obama's only predator sex ed for kindy-kids lie... .... then GUESS WHAT, Campbell and Krugman???

Readers are clever enough to get it right. But they are also humans; and humans will believe a lie if it is repeated to them often enough by authority figures such as the Press. Sadly, the Press understands this very well. So they withhold stories and facts, deny parity and yes, tell readers outright lies repeatedly in a very partisan fashion.

And you two want to shove MORE of this down our throats?? Can’t you see we’re gagging already!

links to Campbel parity quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/arts/television/04brow.html?scp=4&sq=c...

Link to Krugman's wish list for lies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?scp=2&sq=blizza...