A few days in Balz's paper, readers learned that in a recent speech Gingrich called Barack Obama a "food stamp president." Which I think must be some wonky think tank rhetoric.

Matthew Yglesias also noted that in the same appearance, Gingrich advocated a return to Jim Crow-era voting laws, saying: "But maybe we should also have a voting standard that says to vote, as a native born American, you should have to learn American history."

Well, he's definitely spewing something.

One possible downside, Balz warns: "A keen intellect can also translate into the appearance of intellectual superiority." Goodness, will the rest of us even be able to understand his abstruse campaign platform?

Not all media coverage is so bad. The New York Times editorial page reminds readers of some Gingrich's actual positions:

The Democrats who won in 2008, including President Obama, are "left-wing radicals" who lead a "secular socialist machine," he wrote in his 2010 book, To Save America. He accused them of producing "the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America." And then the inevitable historical coup de grâce: "The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."

The slurs don't stop there. He compared the Muslims who wanted to open an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan to the German Reich, saying it "would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum." He is promoting the fringe idea that "jihadis" are intent on imposing Islamic law on every American village and farm.

Last year, he called for a federal law to stop the (nonexistent) onslaught of Sharia on American jurisprudence and accused the left of refusing to acknowledge its "mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it." This nuanced grasp of world affairs was reinforced when he said that Mr. Obama displayed "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior."

In his world, advocates for gay rights are imposing a "gay and secular fascism" using violence and harassment, blacks have little entrepreneurial tradition, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a "Latina woman racist." (He kind of took back that last slur.)

"Intellectual superiority" would not appear to be something  Gingrich has to worry about.

Bush put down the marker not long after the September 11 attacks, saying he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." That was taken as a sign of cowboy swagger by a Texan president by some of his critics, but it was a reflection of the absolute importance that he and much of the nation attached to bringing to justice the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack on the homeland in the history of the nation....

Bin Laden eluded Bush and his team, to their regret, but not for lack of trying. Bush's persistence was palpable and set the tone for the intelligence community tasked with bringing bin Laden to justice. Obama picked up on that commitment when he came into office and redoubled efforts to defeat Al-Qaeda and kill bin Laden.

To cite just one memorable moment that this account overlooks, Bush declared in March 2002:

Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not. We haven't heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He's just a person who's been marginalized.... I don't know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly gathers the rest of the evidence of the Bush administration's less than "palpable" pursuit, including:

In July 2006, we learned that the Bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin Laden.

In September 2006, Bush told Fred Barnes, one of his most sycophantic media allies, that an "emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism."

In the New York Times today:

But White House officials concluded about a month ago that the falsehoods had moved from "the nether regions of the Internet" into the mainstream political arena, thanks in large part to the efforts of Mr. Trump, the real estate developer and reality television host who has used the issue as a media magnet.

Dan Balz of the Washington Post elaborated on the PBS NewsHour:

I mean, I think that the press probably does bear some responsibility for this but there's no question that what Donald Trump had done over the last month, in bringing this issue back to the forefront, at a time when I think most people thought it had been pretty well settled politically, not that--not that there wasn't still some controversy, but that, for the most part, this wasn't a live issue.

But Donald Trump helped to make it a live issue. And all the press coverage attendant to that, some of it aimed at debunking what Donald Trump was saying, nonetheless contributed to this atmosphere.

"Issues" are not brought "to the forefront" and made a "live issue" by some series of accidents, or the physical properties of magnets. Media outlets make decisions about what to cover.  In Balz's world, Trump started talking and the press simply had to cover it. Trump didn't make anything a "live issue"--people who have television stations and newspapers decided to treat him as if he is a serious person.