Politics and Media Spin

But what about civility -- the act of showing regard for others? Certainly the language of the campaign as presented in the media -- war, battle -- is contrary to civil discourse. But is there more?

Take one example: the conservative pundit "attack" on John Edwards immediately after his being a vice presidential candidate. From the July 9, 2004 Washington Times:

The liberal Mr. Kerry was evidently so desperate to win the election that his idea of "balancing" the ticket was to ask Sen. John McCain, a bona fide ideological conservative, to serve a heartbeat away from the presidency. Having failed in that bid, he flip-flopped and selected John Edwards, whom National Journal rated the fourth most liberal member of the Senate last year, even more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton.

There are two problems with this op-ed.

First, John Kerry did not ask McCain to be his running mate.

Second, the National Review, when assessing Democratic candidates for President in 2003, dubbed Edwards "centrist." To give credit to the Republican party, which provided the talking point paper which generated this factoid, the assessment in question was only for votes in 2003 -- not for his entire record. However, the claim quickly morphed into one without that qualification. Or, as in this op-ed, it was presented in a deliberately ambiguous manner: it could be interpreted as "Last year the National Journal assessed lifetime voting records and dubbed Edwards 'the fourth most liberal member' of the Senate."

The Washington Times op-ed was the latest in a series of attacks, most of which had no mention of 2003 or "last year." Is this civil editorializing? Is this accurate reporting (in the cases where the factoid appeared in a "news" article)? Does this contribute to either voter understanding or dialogue? Or is it partisan, "a fervent and even militant proponent of something"? You be the judge.