Billy Hollis has a good example at QandO. One allegation that seems quite popular in recent days on many issues is about myths or distortions or lies or smear campaigns. Van Jones made such an allegation about his need to resign referring to a “vicious smear campaign” using “lies and distortions.” Hollis takes note of a New York Times report about Mark Steyn regarding the President’s school speech plans for comparison and contrast.
In my mind, this qualifies as a true smear. Instead of quoting someone, a misquoting is used that modifies the meaning of the original to make someone look bad.
As far as I can tell, this never happened with Jones. People just put up his own words and videos.
But it doesn’t matter. The word “smear” has been debased by the left, just as “fascist”, “rationing“, and plenty of others. Their post-modernist, Red Queen, multiple truths, “I knew what I meant when I said it” worldview makes that a perfectly legitimate tactic as far as they are concerned. The word “smear” now means “saying something that makes a leftist look bad” regardless of whether that something is true.
For many, this White House resignation is news as major media coverage of the exposures leading up to it have been rather sparse. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air describes the background in The media strikes (out) again on Jones resignation, again with related examples of selective reporting in certain quarters. The pattern in behavior is being noted, both in terms of media reporting as well as in administration staffing.