This isn’t true. As I said in my other comment, the reason you know about the many corrupt and lying right wing politicians is that the press inform you.
The scale is far, far different. If the criticism was proportional to the alleged wrongdoing, then all this about Polanski would be a needle buried deep in a haystack.
I suppose degrees of wrongness would always be technically subjective, but the difference is so stark it’s not really worth arguing about; being corrupt to the core, a fascist, serial liar, or worse, are things that simply don’t compare to saying something wrong on social media. The intent of the press is clear as day, they want to specifically hurt the Green Party in the local election, that’s why there’s this timing.
‘Timing’ is yet another element you’ve raised because it’s convenient. In fact you have no idea when the journalist who uncovered this particular lie did so, you’re simply assuming something underhand because it suits you to do so, not because there’s any evidence thereof.
The pattern is that journalists investigate politicians and call out their lies. Increasingly, the pattern with Polanski himself is that he keeps lying about things.
To believe otherwise, I have to believe there’s some ‘correct’ proportion of scrutiny for each politician, that it’s currently not correct and that you know what the correct proportion is. I see no reason to believe most of that. In your case, it’s obvious you think the correct amount of scrutiny for Polanski is ‘none’, a condition that should never be satisfied.
The scale is far, far different. If the criticism was proportional to the alleged wrongdoing, then all this about Polanski would be a needle buried deep in a haystack.
This is subjective whataboutism.
I suppose degrees of wrongness would always be technically subjective, but the difference is so stark it’s not really worth arguing about; being corrupt to the core, a fascist, serial liar, or worse, are things that simply don’t compare to saying something wrong on social media. The intent of the press is clear as day, they want to specifically hurt the Green Party in the local election, that’s why there’s this timing.
‘Timing’ is yet another element you’ve raised because it’s convenient. In fact you have no idea when the journalist who uncovered this particular lie did so, you’re simply assuming something underhand because it suits you to do so, not because there’s any evidence thereof.
The evidence is the pattern, the fact that it has become so predictable.
The pattern is that journalists investigate politicians and call out their lies. Increasingly, the pattern with Polanski himself is that he keeps lying about things.
To believe otherwise, I have to believe there’s some ‘correct’ proportion of scrutiny for each politician, that it’s currently not correct and that you know what the correct proportion is. I see no reason to believe most of that. In your case, it’s obvious you think the correct amount of scrutiny for Polanski is ‘none’, a condition that should never be satisfied.