It's unfortunate that, after Andrea Bernstein's interview of a Jewish couple regarding their fears regarding Obama, the NY host (John Hockenberry?) injected a bit of anti-semitic stereotyping of his own when he speculated that this was a couple in a plush vehicle like a cadillac. Hmmm, those Rich Florida Jews. My mother-in-law (who is Jewish and who is concerned about Israel and has voted for Obama) doesn't even have a car.

It's one thing when the interviewees utter ridiculous distortions of both candidates-- you're just reporting what people perceive. But for YOU to engage in speculative stereotyping? Shame on you.

This segment contained a case study as to why most reporting is worse than useless.

The statement was that "the democrats" were misrepresenting John Mc.'s position on Medicare. I guess they are just liars? Well, even in the segment the point was made that the "incorrect" statement was a logical conclusion. Never mind if no claim was made that JM physically uttered the conclusion, "he didn't say that".

Is it reasonable to expect a basic recognition that words, policies, and actions have interrelation and consequences beyond their immediate emotional content? The alternative is Inquisition logic that simply cutting a rope has no relation to the person hanging over the cliff at the other end.

Take the opportunity to inform, even in the few seconds available. Even being honest about the difference would be an improvement. There may be a good argument that the conclusion is wrong, but it isn't misrepresentation.