During one of our panels on the cruise, the great David French, when asked for advice or suggestions to conservatives fighting to protect the First Amendment, said, “Fight principles, not people.”

It’s good advice, but it seems pretty clear that both the national media and a like-minded administration would prefer the opposite. The tendency to turn complicated issues into a binary choice about one controversial figure is depressingly standard for the media; you’ll recall how the story about the NSA’s domestic surveillance turned into the storyline of “Edward Snowden: Hero or traitor?” — as if he had to be entirely one or the other, or whether his reputation was the most important aspect of the story, and not, say, what the U.S. government was actually doing.

Already in this young presidential cycle, we see the media will prefer this pattern:

1. A controversial event occurs.

2. A Republican presidential candidate makes a controversial statement about that controversial event.

3. The media’s coverage focuses on the response to the Republican candidate’s controversial statement, instead of the event he discussed.

Exhibit A was Donald Trump and illegal immigration. Exhibit B: Mike Huckabee’s statement that Obama “will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”

Hyperbolic? Sure. But now President Obama himself has denounced the comments during a press conference overseas — ensuring that the news cycle is focused on Huckabee’s comments and the debate as to whether they were out of line. (For Huckabee, mission accomplished; he’s now back in the news.) It would be nice if this debate could turn to the question of whether the Iran deal actually jeopardizes Israel’s security (spoiler alert: yes) and whether the U.S. Senate should vote in favor of the deal.