The Romney camp’s indifference to the truth

The Romney camp’s indifference to the truth

By Greg Sargent

This morning I noted that an anonymous top Romney campaign operative is now defending that false ad attacking Obama by claiming that all political ads take things out of context, and that by definition all political ads are “manipulative” and “propaganda.”

Steve Benen makes an important point about this, pulling in a point from philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s book, “On (B.S.).” Benen notes that the book draws



It’s plainly obvious that this is the case. Romney top adviser Eric Fehnstrom told Dave Weigel on the record that the controversy generated by the ad’s use of Obama’s words was “all deliberate” and “very intentional.” A second Romney adviser, Stuart Stevens, justified the plainly misleading use of Obama footage by claiming that, hey, Obama did say those words, right? And Romney’s New Hamphsire adviser said the same thing, and even added that increased media attention to the ad’s dishonesty was a positive for the romney campaign.

Now we have a top Romney operative stating flatly that they view political ads as “propaganda,” in effect suggesting there are no reasonable standards of fairness and accuracy that can be applied to them. Yes, this latest comes from an anonymous operative. But is there any doubt at this point that this is exactly how the Romney team sees things? Maybe it’s just me, but the broader pattern here seems kind of newsworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-romney-camps-indifference-to-the-truth/2011/12/05/gIQAoQxLWO_blog.html