Both sides of an ad run by a campaign should be checked by the electorate and media for its accuracy. I admit that is a naive thought, especially in regard to the media. Even when the media says that both campaigns are “going too far”, their natural bias will only implicate the Republican campaign while giving the Democrat a pass (see this AP article as an example–starting with paragraph six).

That said, there is nothing in the FactCheck article that quotes Obama as not supporting the principles of the bill he voted for. Furthermore, Obama (and FactCheck) simply defending his vote by saying he wants to protect children from sexual predators (or that the bill stalled anyway) completely misses the greater point of whether American families support schools teaching sex-ed to kindergartners, or a U.S. Presidential candidate who supports this.

Obama must believe that his view will not fly in a national election. Otherwise he would be on the airwaves defending the whole bill on which his vote is based, not only one small part of it.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

We do know that Obama is on the record (twice–once through his vote, and once at a Planned Parenthood news conference almost a year ago) of being in support of teaching comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners.

Now why doesn’t the media report this so that the nation can make a judgment call as to who is doing the lying and distorting?

That’s up to the politico, and, would, of course, be difficult to do. But, as you yourself admit, it works both ways. McCain ads (Obama and sex ed and the pig metaphor) persist in distorting Obama’s words. If AP, McCain, and Obama (who distorts McCain’s voting record) cherry pick, then what?

Outright lying is a different matter.

“If a person lies and persists, a good reporter should say, you know what, we’re done. See ya.”

I agree! But that works both ways, right? Like when the Associated Press quotes only a third of Palin’s statement so that they can paint her as “one of those wacky Christians”…

Or how about when various media outlets reported–directly or indirectly–so many lies on Palin’s background that even Newsweek felt compelled to run a feature story debunking them all…

Do these disqualify those outlets/reporters from a candidate’s press junket?

Obama’s record is his record. Frankly, the bill he voted for is far WORSE than the ad even got into.

In addition to adding “comprehensive sex ecucation” to the curriculum for K-5, it STRIKES from the state law books the requirement to “teach honor and respect for monogamous, heterosexual marriage”, “stress that pupils restrain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage”, or educate on the “possible emotional and psychological consequences” of premarital and/or adolescent sex.

At best, a small fraction is language specifically intended for protecting children from sexual predators.

Winer’s point is that reporters should not move on in an interview when someone persists in articulating a lie. Public figures need the press more than the other way around. The press could always go back to their watchdog job rather than letting any administration or promo group control a message. This hurts the civil discourse of any entity.

If a person lies and persists, a good reporter should say, you know what, we’re done. See ya. That’s not BS. That’s what I will do with people I talk to. If we can’t be reasonable, then we’re done.

Calling someone a liar based upon perception is at worst, a shootable offense (ah, the days of the Old West); at best, rude.