http://www.startribune.com/politics/34376114.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsr

MSNBC and others were duped by an Internet report that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin could not identify Africa on a map and that the fact was confirmed by a McCain staffer. The staffer quoted was in fact fictional, an invention of two mischievous bloggers from New York. MSNBC has retracted the story.

I find this hilarious. Read it in the NY Times yesterday.

It's funny, but sad too. How would you feel if Barack Obama had lost the election because of some made up last minute story that the media ran with, and later was found to be entirely false? The Internet is a fantastic source of realtime information, but can be abused in dangerous ways.

All the more reason that the mainstream media must be held accountable for the accuracy of their stories. They can literally change the world by what they choose to tell us.

Well, the Africa story was "leaked" after the election. And even if it had been before, I don't think we could attribute McCain's loss to that. I think it just goes to show how absurd this 24-hour news cycle is, and how desperate the media is to barf up any juicy-looking thing that comes their way without looking at it very closely first. I bet Palin is appreciating this too--it's a "gotchya" moment for the media.

No, not blaming the election results on that, Dora. That story was written on the wall long before November 4. Just pointing out the dangerous potential.

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

-Mark Twain

dorajar wrote:

Well, the Africa story was "leaked" after the election. And even if it had been before, I don't think we could attribute McCain's loss to that. I think it just goes to show how absurd this 24-hour news cycle is, and how desperate the media is to barf up any juicy-looking thing that comes their way without looking at it very closely first. I bet Palin is appreciating this too--it's a "gotchya" moment for the media.

On previous presidential elections I'd probably agree with you. But in this case almost every state was a battleground state. Obama only won by a landslide when you look at the electoral votes. In many states Obama or McCain would only pull ahead by a few percent. Hell here in Minnesota, a state that's well known to be a blue state Obama only won by 10%.

Absolutely right. A great many times the nomination process and general election were influenced this cycle with misinformation and deliberate distortions that were sexy headlines, but later retracted quietly. A minor example is a dust up that occurred early on which suggested that John McCain might not be eligible to run for president, since he was born in Panama during his father's Navy service. The speculation was entirely false, since under those circumstances McCain qualified as a natural born citizen. That fact was easy to establish with minimal research by media. But the story ran first, without bothering to do the homework. The same could be said of the Barack Obama "madrassa" story which did its damage with only half hearted efforts to refute it.

The Palin "Africa Story" was eagerly embraced by liberals who were delighted to hear of more evidence to support their belief that she is stupid and uneducated. Palin, for all her faults and controversial beliefs, is neither. But MSNBC was more than happy to toss some raw meat to the hooting crowds. Interesting to see the outrage of some progressives for being cast as elitists, when they're obviously so eager to dismiss politicians outside their ideology and the Washington clique as ignorant rubes.

And yes, it was a close election in the popular vote. I had predicted a 5% margin of victory. Obama won the popular vote by 7%.