A question for reporters who believe false equivalence is a problem with the observer. Suppose you had two candidates for office, Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa. Hitler has massive rallies with people goose stepping and yelling Nazi slogans. They beat up Jews and homosexuals in dark alleys. A few nights ago they broke all the windows in Jewish businesses.
On the other hand Mother Teresa has set up soup kitchens to feed the poor, free health clinics, and daycare so single moms can go to work. They hand out flowers at their rallies and preach Make Love Not War.
So when you report on the campaign do you say that Hitler's supporters are awful people, but there have been reports of people saying nasty stuff at Mother Teresa's rallies too, so you figure it out.
The point, in case it isn't obvious, is that elections are never balanced, there's always a difference between the candidates. Never has it been more clear than in the 2016 presidential race. Of course Hillary is not a saint, and we don't know yet what's really on DJ Trump's mind. But we do know that one looks like a pretty normal candidate for president and the other scares the shit out of almost anyone with a sense of history, or who isn't white and Christian (and probably a few of those people too).
Also, this is not a logical fallacy. If you have a rule that says that all candidates are the same you can prove it false by showing an example where they clearly are not.