We are at a dangerous point in this election when our media seems unable to grasp that the most basic rules that hold democracy together are under daily assault from a determined and increasingly violence-prone minority. Let us be clear about what McCain/Palin are doing:

John McCain has authorized Sarah Palin to use not just lies and smears but deliberately inflammatory rhetoric to incite hatred and fear of Barack Obama. Audience members are already calling for violence. It is only a matter of time before McCain/Palin's falsely linking Obama to terrorism and unAmerican sympathies will erupt in violence against Obama's people, the media or anyone opposing the McCain/Palin ticket.

Inciting others to violence is a crime, a dangerous felony, and it is time for our media to stop treating this incitement as just another gradation of "negative campaigning." Such head-in-the-sand dismissiveness is too often "balanced" by stories that "the other side is doing negative ads too" as though pointing out flaws in an opponent's position on health care was equivalent to insinuating your opponent is a menace to public safety.

A perfect example is this article on ABC

"At some level, negative rhetoric is part of the game. But is it truly dangerous?" asked Kimberly Gross, a professor of political communication at George Washington University. "Is someone going to kill Barack Obama because they went to a Palin rally? Probably not, and if they do it is more likely because they're crazy than because they heard someone tell them to do it at a Palin rally. It is dangerous in a bigger sense that it is bad for politics."

Ya think? How reassuring to know that if someone beats up a CNN camera crew, or assaults Obama supporters after attending a Palin rally, it was only because they were already predisposed to violence.

The Media Have been Had Again

The McCain campaign told us they wanted to change the subject from the economy, and they have succeeded. The Ayers story is now replacing the economy on all news/political shows. But no one is explaining even that correctly. Here is the essence that has been lost:

Obama has had completely non-violent associations with people who are interested in education, in housing, in community development. Lots of people have joined in the same effort because they too believe in those things, including Democrats, Republicans, Independents and yes, even people who once believed it was okay to throw bombs 40 years ago. None of these people, including Obama, associated to support violence or terrorism. End of story.

McCain/Palin's insinuation that Obama associates with terrorists because he sympathizes with terrorism or violence is a flat lie, a despicable smear; it's time for the media to call it what it is and to condemn the campaign for sinking into the gutter.

It is not an answer to say, "well McCain also associated with violent groups." Obama has done nothing wrong, so saying "McCain did it too," is the wrong response and only feeds the smear. If McCain has questionable associations that suggest he believed in/supported questionable activitives, then that is a separate story and should be investigated. But it should not be used to legitimize the smear that Obama's associations to promote education, housing and community development were wrong.

Get it straight media, before violence erupts. It's up to you to stop this.