False equivalence: Halfway between two opposing sides is a rational compromise. Problem: What if one opposing side is a bunch of dumbasses?
I guess the "liberal" media is so sensitive to charges of bias that it resorts to positions of false equivalence to avoid taking a stand.
The AtlanticFalse Equivalence: The Master Class
Reminder about the concept: The essence of the false-equivalence mindset is the reflexive assumption that "reality" is halfway between whatever two contending sides assert. Maybe that reflects early immersion in the Goldilocks saga. ("This one is too big. That one is too small. This one is just right!") Maybe it's a holdover from the age of Walter Cronkite. Perhaps it's the D.C. worthy-person's mantra, familiar from conferences and talk shows, that "partisans on both sides" are the main threat to progress. Whatever. We see it all around us now.
....
In short the facts before us are:
- an administration that has gone some distance toward "the center";
- a Republican opposition many of whose members still hold the absolutist position that taxes cannot go up at all;
- a hidden-from-no-one opposition strategy that embraces crises, shutdowns, and sequesters rather than wanting to avert them. Look again at the Lizza/Cantor quote: Obama and the Republicans could have had a "Grand Compromise" deal, but Republican hotheads wanted a fight for the sake of fighting.
That's the landscape. And what is the Post's editorial conclusion? You guessed it! The president is to blame, for not "leading" the way to a compromise. Representative passages:
