Initially triggered by the uproar over the planned Islamic center near Ground Zero, we are experiencing a new upsurge in anti-Muslim fever. It’s all over the news. Time magazine asks on its cover “Is America Islamophobic?” In the New York Times, “American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?”

As I read all of this, I find myself asking: “Why now?” We are approaching the ninth anniversary of September 11. I would have thought that this sort of hatred and racism would have peaked several years ago. By now, we should be on the downslope.

After all, there have been no terrorist attacks by Muslims on U.S. soil since September 11. The Iraq war is slowly winding down, as we come to view Iraqis more as allies than enemies. Why is the rhetoric heating up at this particular juncture?

I believe I know. The answer is the upcoming November elections. Here’s the logic:

The “far right” — and to a large extent the entire Republican mainstream — view demonizing Obama as a key to success in November. The more unpopular Obama becomes and the more his policies are cast in a negative light, the greater the opportunity for Republicans to win seats in Congress this fall. So far, none of this is surprising.

What makes the current situation worse than typical is that a significant part of demonizing Obama rests upon popularizing beliefs that are completely and utterly false (as explored in detail in a recent Newsweek article). Primary among these beliefs is the one that says Obama is secretly a Muslim. According to the Newsweek poll, a quarter of the country (and 52% of Republicans!) now think this is true — even though it is false. As explained in the Newsweek article, the growth and persistence of this myth is aided by statements by conservatives, from those on Fox News to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, that subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) encourage this belief.

Getting people to believe Obama is a Muslim is only half the battle, however. The belief won’t have a negative impact on Democrats if people hold a positive or even neutral view toward Muslims in general. That’s why the dropping of the second shoe is promoting people’s prejudices against Muslims.

Now you have a syllogism that works for Republicans: “I hate Muslims. Obama is a Muslim. Therefore I hate Obama.” With this in place, success in November becomes almost a sure thing. And so you have national Republican figures getting worked up about mosques to a degree that would otherwise never happen.

For some people, the syllogism may also work in the opposite direction: “I hate Obama (usually for some other entirely false reason); I hate Muslims; Therefore, I believe it when people say Obama is Muslim.”

Either way, it’s part of a disturbing trend of discarding facts and truth from our political conversations. It’s all part of our current “fact-free environment.”

You’ll read how all of this is also part of a long history of such trends in our country. At other times, it was Jews, Japanese, Irish, and of course African-Americans that were the target. And you’ll read how such sins are not unique to Republicans and conservatives. You’ll hear it said that this is all pretty much “politics as usual” — as played by both parties. I would argue that there are qualitative differences between the tactics of Democrats vs. Republicans. Regardless, none of this is any justification for tolerance of the present situation.

No matter what your politics, it’s time to stand up and reject promoting myths as a legitimate political strategy.

In the current hyper-partisan atmosphere in politics, television reporting seems to fall into one of two categories. You have networks that actively promote partisanship (such as the “fair and balanced” Fox News Channel). And you have networks that are so afraid to take a position on anything that they say essentially nothing of value. This left me wondering: When it comes to media reporting, notably on television, what is a fair definition of “fair”?

It’s not an easy question to answer. Easier to do is to cite what is not fair. Hopefully, by avoiding these three pitfalls, the networks will find their way to “fair.”

• Having opposing analysts does not mean you’re being fair. Especially on cable news networks, a news story is often followed by two talking heads, an analyst from the left and another from the right, offering their opposing views of the story in question.

If the two analysts are calm, rational, intelligent people — and are encouraged to present their positions in a calm, rational and intelligent manner — this approach has the potential to offer worthwhile insights. Unfortunately, this is almost never the case. Rather, what you typically get are two partisans doing their best to spin and distort the story to the best advantage of their own political party (Republican vs. Democrat). Rarely does the network commentator challenge the analysts as to the veracity of their statements.

Instead of seeking thoughtful commentary, the networks seem to encourage disparaging remarks, combative attacks, and heated debate. It all translates into higher ratings. And ratings are the name of the game.

And all of this assumes a best case scenario. It assumes that the network in question does not start off with an agenda to declare one side or the other as the winner, regardless of the facts. As we are all too well aware, this is not the case with stations such as Fox and MSNBC.

• Citing pros and cons of each position (or falsehoods stated by each candidate) does not lead to fairness. When discussing an issue where Republicans and Democrats have opposing views, a network may cite a list of pros and cons for each side, being careful to offer an equal number of points for each position. What is missing from such lists is any attempt to evaluate the relative importance of each claim or its degree of distortion. Which side, if any, ultimately has the stronger case? The networks do not say. In fact, some networks argue that to imply one side has a stronger case than the other is exactly what they should not do — doing so would indicate a lack of impartiality. While there is a grain of truth to this plea (more about this is a moment), the networks hardly wind up being impartial.

By always presenting an equal number of pro and con arguments for each side, the implication is that there are always an equal number of such arguments to be made. And that the arguments all have equal weight. We all know this is not always the case. If cable news networks were around during the Civil War, would they have covered the debate in such a way as to suggest that the pros vs. cons of slavery were equal? Probably. But is that really what we mean by being fair? I hope not.

The worst examples of this false fairness are with political campaign coverage. During an election campaign, news networks may evaluate campaign speeches, citing where each candidate either made an accurate statement or a false one. Again, such reports almost always cite an equal number of true vs. false claims by each candidate. Too often, this means you wind up hearing something like this:

“Candidate A said that the government spent 2.25 billions dollars on this program last year. Actually, the government spent 2.26 billion dollars. As for Candidate B, he claims that the program reduces taxes primarily for low income wage-earners. However, several studies show that the program primarily reduces taxes for people earning over $200,000 a year. So each candidate has occasionally been less than truthful on their campaign trails.”

The implication is that a relatively minor error in dollars spent is somehow equally egregious to stating the complete opposite of the truth. The networks choose to gloss over the obvious qualitative differences in order to wind up with a balanced checklist. Often, this is because they are motivated by fear of being cast as having a “liberal” or “conservative” bias. However, this winds up encouraging viewers to conclude that both candidates are equally guilty of misstatements, leading to a cynical “a pox on both their houses.”

A dispassionate analysis of the facts could lead to a reasonable conclusion that one side is more in error than the other. If so, a news report should reflect this. Stating such conclusions does not mean the report is partisan or editorializing; it means the report accurate.

[A sign of progress: I recently heard (on NPR’s On the Media) that ABC’s This Week has teamed with PolitiFact to monitor the truthfulness/accuracy of the show’s guests. This should be interesting.]

• Listener surveys don’t qualify as fair. In these days where all the buzz is about social media, the current trend is to ask for listener feedback. “Tell us what you think,” the newscaster implores. Do so via Twitter, FaceBook or email. At some point, the programs typically reports the results (e.g., “53% of our respondents support Arizona’s new immigration law” or whatever).

While there is some value in knowing what your neighbors are thinking (even when “neighbors” are defined as the entire rest of the country), it is too easy to overstate the importance of this information, especially as gathered in this way.

First, these are not scientific samples. The respondents only include people who were listening to the station at the time and were sufficiently motivated to offer a reply. Does this actually represent what the “American people” as a whole are thinking? Almost certainly not. But this is rarely made clear.

Second, there is no guarantee that responders are the least bit informed about the issue. Quite the opposite, people often have strong opinions on matters of which they have no factual knowledge. From a political perspective, it may be interesting to know that X% of Americans do not believe that Obama was born in the United States. It could have a bearing on how people plan to vote. However, whatever X% turns out to be, it has no bearing on the truth or falseness of claims as to where Obama was born. Obama does not become more or less likely to have been born in the United States as result of the ups and downs of such phony polls. Obama’s birth and citizenship is a matter of established fact, regardless of what a survey may reveal about the misconceptions of some Americans. Too often, this distinction is lost when discussing such results.