We should treat each “gaffe” or false fact (or false arguments based on false facts) appropriately.

I say hard-wired because, as Al Gore put it in Assault on Reason, those early humans who did not instantly key in on audio-visual input did not survive and are not our ancestors.

I agree that an individual can insulatie himself from the hysteria on blogs and in the meida. The larger worry is, though, that those applying judicious judgment of their own are being outnumbered by those who do not. do so and are taken over by a cult mentality.

The herd can determine voting outcomes, when they are the majority.
It's hard for rational thinkers to sway the public, because logic and calm analysis simply lack the appeal of scandal, hate and emotionalism.
John Adams mistrusted the common man, and offensive as that may seem, I sometimes see his point. It's even worse, though, when the educated or sophisticated man becomes morally corrupt and can use his intelligence to persuade the common man.

Still, that is politics. The media have always done this…exaggerating things to make politicians fit their meme…even on very slender basis.

Look at Allen and the “macaa” saga. The Washington Post went demented on the story. As their ombudsperson noted, even the WaPo editors admitted it was sorta excessive when the story was featured in EVERY section of the paper, from News to Style to Sports over a period of months. It destroyed his career.

It is wrong, but there it is.

Domajot said: “I don't see it that way. Blogs feed off the media, and , increasingly, the media pay attention to blogs. The cross breeding enhances hate and divisiveness.”

I must agree. Increasingly one sees blog points/arguments getting into mainstream media. (For example, Kristol's inaccuracy in the NYT about Obama at a Wright service, that circulated on blogs beforehand.) Certainly the Obama-Clinton viciousness is fuelled by blogs (maybe commenters more than bloggers?).

But it is one thing to have obsessive bloggers go mad about something, and another to have a network reaching millions focus on something unremittingly. Perhaps Fox going overboard compensates for CBS-NBC News-NYT decisions to largely avoid the Wright business. But it is slightly mad.

I don't see it that way. Blogs feed off the media, and , increasingly, the media pay attention to blogs. The cross breeding enhances hate and divisiveness.

.

Senator Obama favors firing people who are misunderstood and when those who misunderstood are upset. Senator Obama has little room to complain about other nitpicking what he says.

Except for a few outposts , true news analysis, the kindJoe refers to in the post, is pretty much dead. Every insinuation or accusation can pass for analysis these days, and the analysis itself then becomes the news story, while the original event or words being analyzed.fade away to non-existence.

If negative political ads erode rational thought, this trend in blogs is a thousand times more poisonous. At least ads can be seen for what they are, but blogs wear an unearned mantle of autheticity;. because these are citizens speaking, not the mistrusted media. Plus, they sound so auuthoritative.: Clinton did/said this because of this. There is not even a hint to suggest that this is an opinion, not journalistic reporting.

This does not bode well for the future. I wonder if future historians, writing about our times, will be susceptible to confusing analyses with actuality.

PS TO MARLOWECAN: I cited your words as an example of how the twisting can sometimes begin, not as an accusation that that's what you have done.

Perhaps the Wallace thing is the same sort of deal. I doubt Wallace is a Democrat, but “All Wright All the Time” does cause eyes to glaze over.

The “typical white person” gaffe was a gaffe. Now that Obama is doing more media, he will make more of these things. Every candidate does. McCain does more media than either Obama or Clinton. More gaffes. When the media like you, they often overlook gaffes. But this is an election year, and the media need meat, so McCain will probably cut back.

Of course, then there is Bill Clinton. Are his comments really gaffes?