The silly season has come early to this year’s presidential campaign. The seemingly interminable Republican brawl has pushed matters to the point where various media outlets seem to be competing for the “most outrageous” title.

The results range from the naughtily amusing to the downright horrifying.

The well-respected Foreign Policy Magazine took a swipe at former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum last week, posting his photo alongside that of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme leader, with the following caption:

“One is a religious fanatic railing against secularism, the role of women in the workplace, and the evils of higher education, as he seeks to impose his draconian moral values upon the state. The other is the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

There followed an eight-question quiz: quotes were given, and the reader was invited to guess whether they had been uttered by the Ayatollah or the presidential candidate.

Sometimes it was hard to tell.

More from GlobalPost: Costa Rica tries to go smoke-free

This delighted some and enraged others. A group of students at The Fletcher School of Tufts University felt that the august publication had gone too far. They held lively discussions on media ethics during classes normally devoted to topics like civil war in Syria or the politics of globalization.

Others thought it was, well, funny.

But humor is very much in the politics of the beholder, as witnessed by the truly appalling rhetoric surrounding Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, who appeared before a House committee to make the case for requiring employers to include contraception in women’s health care coverage.

This prompted uber-conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to call her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” and to suggest that, if his tax dollars were to pay for her sexual exploits, she post videos of said exploits on the Internet, so that “we can all watch.”

More from GlobalPost: The world according to Rick Santorum

The outcry that followed this gruesome monologue was so intense that Limbaugh was forced to issue an apology, of sorts.

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”

He then made matters worse, if anything, with his ill-considered addendum:

“I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress.”

But Limbaugh stressed that we should not overreact; he was, after all, only joking.

“In the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir,” he added.

The commotion made Sandra Fluke a media star and earned her a call from President Barack Obama. It gave Limbaugh a bit of a black eye. Several sponsors pulled their ads, and at least two radio stations dropped his show.

The Republican candidates refused to condemn him outright. Santorum said that Limbaugh had the right to speak as he did because “that’s what entertainers do.” Former Massachusetts Mitt Romney pooh-poohed Limbaugh’s word choice, but failed to criticize him on substance.

It was the biggest story of the week, by far outstripping the Republican campaign in time and emotion.

Perhaps this is as it should be. Tough questions about the economy, foreign intervention, or the soul of America pale in comparison to titillating debates about sex.

More from GlobalPost: Sex is the only thing sloths do quickly

But it does bring up the question of the role of the media in shaping the political debate.

Is Rush Limbaugh a journalist, or is he, as Santorum claims, merely “an entertainer”? Are the anger and hatred he peddles supposed to be amusing?

Is Jon Stewart strictly a comedian, or do his pithy and often scatological political analyses actually contribute to a deeper understanding of the situation?

Where is the line between news and entertainment, and who should be making the rules?

Not long ago I had a conversation with a high-ranking official at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), who used to be a reporter for a major news network. She was lamenting the death of the industry, especially as represented by her former employer.

“There’s just nothing on any more,” she sighed. “It’s just ‘info-tainment.’”

She may be right; but are we, the “elitist media” that Newt Gingrich is always sputtering about, catering to or contributing to these tendencies?

As we “dumb down” to get audiences, we may be creating a vicious cycle that leads to even shallower coverage in the future. It’s easier, and probably cheaper, to crank out stories based on bile and bias, but it sure does make for a nasty debate.

A recent study by Brock University in Ontario, Canada, linked social conservatism to a lack of brainpower:

“Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice.”

This is interesting information for a Republican candidate field in which each contestant seems to be vying for the chance to show his “true conservative” colors.

And judging by the recent major stories in print and on the airwaves, it could be good news for the media.

Hold on to your hats, this could get ugly.