Because what passes for political news these days is basically unwatchable, I was thinking about a solution. If nothing else, the ugliness of the McCain-Palin campaign has made the issues very clear. I think two are the most important. One is obvious, and that is the false comparison. For example, were McCain's "minister problems" equal or greater than Jeremiah Wright's rants? I was surprised that the Obama campaign has rarely, if ever pointed out that there's a huge difference between inviting a "problematic" minister to your public appearance and denouncing a minister for remarks you disagree with right after you hear those remarks. Thus, I think this is something one must point out to the "referees" that the MSM now is in many ways.
The second issue requires an adjustment to the MSM's susceptibility to narrative manipulation. Obama has been called elitist, socialist, and friend to terrorists. McCain, on the other hand, has been called erratic, which appears to be consistent with actions that basic reporting covers. Since the MSM wants to be "fair and balanced," when their supporters are asked about such things, they should say that they and Obama are living in the real world, not one consisting of abstract concepts that are usually incorrectly applied. For example, Obama's tax plan was stated clearly and succinctly. You can agree with it. You can disagree with it. You can have no opinion on it. But if you want to call it "socialist," and if that is inconsistent with the definitions of socialism in the major dictionaries, then you need to explain why you feel that you are exempt from basic logic, and thus are permitted to create your own reality.
Supporters should point out that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts (such as when Brokaw recently pointed out that Reagan raised taxes during economic hard times, but McCain wouldn't accept this statement of fact). Unfortunately, in the MSM's attempts to be "fair and balanced," this crucial point is ignored and those with obvious conflicts of interest and ideological agendas are given free reign to make fools of themselves, as well as the "journalists" interviewing them. After all, it's the "conservatives" who like to talk about how wonderful the 1950s were. Well, how many Americans workers were in strong unions back then? And what did the rich (and corporations) pay in taxes back then? Obviously, only a racist would want to go back to race relations back then, so according to their own warped claims, many "conservatives" would like us to go back to a time of extreme "socialism" (relative to the USA today) while attacking Obama as a "socialist," simply because he wants very wealthy people to pay slightly higher income tax (something that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet agree with). I think this approach might force MSM talking heads to think about how ridiculous their presentations are, if it is applied consistently over a long enough period of time. It's better than the nonsense that has gone beyond laughable to those who are interested in a serious discussion or analysis of politics.