Alan is to the left of the Democrats. Hardly a creditable commentator.

Highly unlikely.

"Incumbent President Barack Obama, in contrast, is generally depicted as a politician who tells the truth. Will this distinction between the two sides be a factor with the voters in November?"

As the Washington Post article points out...

"...journalists will sit back and name winners and losers without regard to who is telling the truth, ...[while] voters are too ignorant to care about the truth."

Although, to be fair, it is not so much a matter of ignorance as anomie. Created by the long procession of politicians who constantly and shamelessly break the compact with their constituents, by voting exclusively in their own pecuniary interests.

Journalists are simply feeding this feeling of disconnectedness, by tapping directly into the individual's prejudices and fears. C'mon, they have to earn a living too. After all, if politicians lie in order to keep their particular gravy-train a-rolling, why should journalists put their families' livelihood on the line by sticking to reality?

Closer to home, we have our own Alan Jones, performing the same slight-of-hand with the facts, and earning an extremely comfortable living while doing so.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Allan: The difference in the way the two sides are characterised on this issue in the US is challenging the old cliché "all politicians lie".

I don't think you can say that, Political Correctness an' all.

It's not that they lie. It's that they colour the truth. It's not only Politicians. All the Hierarchy do it in order to advance their particular stance on their own hobby horse. All advertising is a lie. Someone once said, "Don't sell the product, sell the hype." That's what happening in everywhere including Politics.

Didn't they just pass a Law in Queensland allowing Queensland Politicians to, "Not tell the truth" They are still not allowed to "lie." but now they can, "be loose with the truth" What sort of a world are we living in nowadays when this can be made a Law.

Corporations retain Law Firms to find ways around any Law that restricts them from colouring the truth about their product. Just take Labelling for example. They claim it'll cost too much to change the label on a product to comply with the Law & want Compensation. Have a look at any labelling. It changes at least twice a year, usually claiming to be an updated product when the only update is the label.

The only way to put a stop to all this is to make the Law "Black & White" with penalties for attempting to thwart the Law. But, they won't do that.

Truth vs falsehood is not a new dichotomy but a very old one. The old dichotomies provide a realistic basis on which to argue cases. “Left” vs “right” once referred to the arrangement of seats in the French national assembly and grew into the invented political terms which are used by the unthinking and by charlatans to duck the questions of right vs wrong, just vs unjust, true vs false.

Thus when Alan Austen proclaims the idea of analysing political behaviour in terms of truth vs untruth he immediately draws an obscurantist attempt to place him on a scale as “to the left of the Democrats” rather than come to grips with his argument. Pterodactyl politics - left wing, right wing and scales.

The real dichotomies have plenty of room for difference over what constitutes what, but discussion framed in them relates to reality. Mindless pterodactyl labelling does not - indeed when you see the “left-right” labelling look for the intent behind its use. One can guarantee that it is not to elucidate anything.

Politicians have always lied; the only difference now is that we have the tools to record what they say and test it against reality now and at any time in the future. What we will find when we do this comprehensively, I suspect, is that they lie just about as much as anyone else whose job involves marketing something to the public, whether that's PepsiCo or Greenpeace or the Catholic Church or the AWU.

If we punish lying by politicians, then for consistency we should also punish lying by the representatives of advertisers, religions, union officials, law enforcement agencies, pressure groups and government departments. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

Yes Alan I think politicians can definitely be classified as those who often lie (e.g Abbott, Ryan) and those who generally don't (e.g. Gillard, Turnbull). I'd add a third category, those who are always clear and truthful; Tim Fisher may have fitted that category. I also think society is increasingly classifying them thus, though some don't care if pollies do lie if they are delivering what they want. (it's this group that's a worry).

I'm optimistic that the many truth seeking internet news sites and free, uncensored internet blogs (such as this one) will enable society to become more discerning of honest vs lying politicians. But mainstream media has to be called to account for promulgating lies by more rigorous media oversight (I reckon Finkelstein had the solution to this). But my hopes of this happening before the next election are fading. With competent unbiased media, their highlighting of politicians' lies would be punishment enough to keep them in line. (e.g. Leigh Sales' recent interview with Abbott on ABC).

PS Amazing that even "Rupert's Foxy Propaganda" network pointed to Ryan's deceit. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall - if they promulgate too much bullsh-t even the 'plebs' will stop watching / buying and that means less dollars for them.