I am starting to feel like it's part of our culture to take a completely prurient interest in every bit of 'news' that comes out.  Nowadays the over-aggressive sonar person might be sending an e-report to CNN, MSNBC or Fox in order to grab a little glory and squeeze some high drama out of what could actually be a fairly routine situation.  Add this to the press' insatiable attraction to hype, gore and inaccuracy and you already have a recipe for disaster.  The very last thing we need to add to that mix is our leadership spinning things in their serious and sometimes scary way for some sneaky or flat out evil angle of their own.  It's very discouraging to see that really basic things that were promised to us by both parties in the house and senate are being ignored, but nobody seems to miss an opportunity to get on the news and give their two cents about the next group of people that we need to squash....or save, depending on which version of spin you're being exposed to at the time.  If the majority of people agree that the inmates are running the asylum right now, why not use the air time that is so readily available to calm things down?  Because that's not sexy, it doesn't sell and it can't retain the attention span of a huge population of people that seem to have chronic ADD. Very sad.  

As we look forward to the results of the New Hampshire primary [or do we?], we must reflect on the power of instantaneous reporting.  The web, and all its attendant iterations, provide for instantaneous response to all of life's triumphs and ills.  But, the printed press provides time for reflection and analysis which folks instantly responding to developing situations can not provide.  As I write this, Clinton is leading in the race in NH and already folks are saying Obama may be a flash in the pan!?  [Less than 25% of the votes have been counted.}

Regardless of the results, I can't wait to pick up the NYT tomorrow on the doorstep [or even Thursday morning] and read a more reasoned reflection on this election.

Bottom Line: Long live the printed journalisim.

You're absolutely right.  Yesterday people were saying it was all over for Hillary.  A few hours later she wins NH, but before the votes are finished being counted people (the same ones?) start saying it's all over for Obama!  And this is only the second one (technically the third, but apparently Wyoming doesn't count).

And the polls.  Once again they were wrong.

The internet has brought us instant access to the partially-thought-out opinions of many people who don't really know what they're talking about.  (Like the one you're reading now.)  I think people get swept up in the political contests the same way they do for the NCAA basketball tourney or the NFL playoffs.  They pick their favorite, get swept up in the fever, and invest themselves emotionally in the outcome a bit more than is justified by what's actually happening.  As the emotion goes up, the thought process goes down.

We should use the sniff test on all the news, views, and "expert" "insight."   And, as you suggest, take a bit of time to chew before swallowing.

The reality and frustration is that thoughtful reflection and anayysis do not sell papers, there is no reliable verification process for e-type "news" sources, and television is geared to entertainment and glitz.  Today's starlet's latest esapade into rudeness or beyond is somehow more appealing to so many people than an insightful analysis into a candidate's positions, an issue, foreign trade, or local planning.  Our culture seems to encourage this, reward it, and support it.  Clearly fault lies in our schools but more importantly in our homes.  Instant gratification and ADD approaches will not produce the best of what we are capable.  Sure, cheese doodles are fun to eat, but they cannot be one's entire diet; the consequences are too obvious - the solution is not so much so.