Applying Vastly Different Standards to Spin in Lieu of the Facts

Glenn Greenwald, author of How Would A Patriot Act, aptly illustrates the often wildly divergent standards that the far right applies to those on various parts of the political spectrum:

Editor Rich Lowry can't believe that John McCain, whom Lowry notes is a "war hero," was treated so disrespectfully when he spoke last night at the New School in Manhattan. Lowry finds it "incredible" and "amazing" that a war hero would be subjected to heckling when giving a highly controversial speech praising a highly unpopular war. Apparently, heckling a war hero during a speech is a despicable act. But it's perfectly OK to waive purple band-aids at decorated, wounded war veterans; and it's fine to accuse them of being soft on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein even after they voted for the Iraq invasion and co-sponsored creation of the Homeland Security Department; and there is nothing wrong with going to the floor of the House and labeling a war hero a "coward" and then following it up with a year's worth of accusations that they are also a traitor. Calling into question a war hero's patriotism, their courage, the seriousness of their war wounds, and their allegiance to the United States (emphasis all added) is all perfectly fine. Just don't boo them at a speech.

As suggested at Media Matters, here, and elsewhere, the Press, though not as flagrantly, often applies different standards to the two main political party candidates as well. It is very difficult to come up with the correct analysis, when vastly different standards are applied depending upon political slant, perspective, motivation or bias, or, in the case of the media, caving in to constant pressure from the right wing, and a fear of being labeled "liberal."