last pre-election political post (thank god)

We've heard much about "negative campaigning." But I think there's a clear distinction to be drawn between "negative" speech that highlights the truth, however harmful it might be to a candidate, and negative speech based on speculation, insinuation, or falsehood. The first is necessary and ultimately positive: how can people judge if they're unaware of the facts? The second, of course, is truly mudslinging.

The media does the public a disservice when, in service of a false ideal of objectivity, it treats each kind of negative speech with equanimity - as if it's simply a matter of "he said, she said" writ large. Truth is more important than objectivity.