You see, they're going to "fact check" the claims by the politicians. What could be more journolistic?
The problem is, of course, that nobody trusts them anymore, because we remember their past "reporting":
I suppose it would be easier to muster the media-desired amount of outrage on media-command if one had no memory of the previous election cycle in which all the (R)s were also, coincidentally, called “liars”. Or the one before that. Or, really, any situation involving an (R) that has been observed and then punditized all over on by some bright young Ivy Leaguer with a WaPo career in his future or present. But this “liars” thing has always been with us, going back as far as I can remember. The administration of George W. Bush, for example, was so dishonest that punditlings all felt the need to break out their thesauri and search for synonyms, presumably just so they wouldn’t all bore themselves (‘mendacious’ was evidently hit upon as the preferred synonym, by some sort of tacit universal agreement). Come on! He ‘lied us into’ a war. He was the head Lying Liar And The Lying Liars Who Lie. There was also Sarah Palin who said she could see Russia AND SHE COULDN’T and said she went to Iraq at a certain time AND SHE DIDN’T. It’s always like this; spot-the-(R)-lie is journalists’ favorite parlor game, for crying out loud. It’s their calling.We remember that Drudge broke the Lewinsky story, because the press found a "lie" that they didn't think was important. We remember that the New York Times let themselves be scooped by the National Inquirer on the story of John Edwards' mistress, and his lies about same weren't lies sufficiently grave for the fact checkers. And as I pointed out, they took lies written in Microsoft Word - not even convincing lies at that - because it was useful to be used against George W. Bush.
Ah, but this time will be different, because they're ... well, just because. Ooooooh kaaaaay.