While fact-checking is an essential media function, particularly during an election year, it's a hollow exercise if journalists start with the assumption that both sides must be found equally guilty of falsehoods. It is, in fact, not always the case that both campaigns are responsible for deceptive claims to the same degree; coverage that insists on a false even-handedness, while pretending to expose political mendacity, actually gives cover for it by neutralizing criticism with the "they all do it" defense. Such coverage may protect news outlets from charges of bias, but it does a disservice to voters... Discuss. I am finding this bullsh!t attempt to occupy the middle ground of a discussion that is skewed far right offensive, and, most importantly, abandoning of the investigative arm that media needs to make the world live in accountability, instead trading that for media AS cults of personality and networks AS brands calling on "trust," whatever the fvck THAT means.