The language seems intemperate and somewhat biased. When the McCain campaign does it, it's a smear. Obama says it, it's truth bending. However, I can't disagree that trying to whip up fear with frightening labels could have a deleterious effect on our society. As a writer, I believe words do matter.

Interesting , albeit superficial, opinion piece about politics and perceptions.

I've practiced journalism for more than 35 years, and I have no idea what, exactly, this is: a blog post, an overlong opinion, or just plain bad journalism--probably the worst example of any story I have ever read on NewsTrust.net. If this was handed in as an assignment at our journalism school, we'd flunk the staff writer. (Open up my full review, and then hit the "Quotes" tab and see my comments supporting that statement.) The reporter cites and then criticizes his sources. He editorializes almost in every paragraph. Entire paragraphs of attacks on the McCain-Palin campaign are unattributed or use the anonymous "analysts said"--a tactic that allows the reporter to editorialize under the guise of seeming to have interviewed ... More »

the story begins with anecdotes from mccain supporters after his concession. it goes on to point out some of the distortions about sen. obama from the mccain campaign to which the writer attributes the responses of his supporters now. he includes a source which discusses the media's general role in how distortions spread, but doesn't put that into his mix. the writer comes through in the piece as very frustrated/outraged by those distortions.

Looking at truth and lies is what the media should do -- and that's what the reporter did here.

The statements are more qualitative than quantitative, but present an image of too many people believing the lies and slander being spread by the most malevolent campaign in recent history. The value of fact-checking is touted, and justifiably, but fact checking obviously did not reach the many malinformed voters. The article is recommended.