If They Don't Compare, Don't Compare Them
by tristero
Today, Nicholas Kristof said something very true:
Frankly, we should be discomfited that many Americans have absorbed the idea that Hillary Clinton is less honest than Donald Trump, giving Trump an edge in polls of trustworthiness.
Hello? There is no comparison.
And then he proceeded to compare the two:
One commonly cited example of Clinton’s lying is her false claim in 2008 that when she was first lady she came under sniper fire after her plane landed in Bosnia. In contrast, with Trump, you don’t need to go back eight years: One examination found he averages a lie or an inaccuracy in every five minutes of speaking.
EEEEEAAAAAGH (pounding head on desk)!!!!!!!
Well, let's give him some credit for improving. In a recent earlier column, he wrote:
Clearly, Clinton shades the truth — yet there’s no comparison with Trump.
And then he compared Clinton to Trump seven times.
Why does this matter? Because this construction creates a rhetorical equality. It doesn't matter who is the more egregious liar. What people take away is the comparison, not the details. Add together the fact that Trump is getting literally double the headline and photo coverage of Clinton with the fact that despite what he says, Kristof behaves as if they actually are comparable (like nearly everyone else in the media) and you've got a recipe that all but guarantees a dangerously close election.
And it's coming.