Like the people she berates, Ms. Goldwasser has mistaken "the internet" for interaction and new for best. To do this she's twisted the focus of surveys to match her party line. The issues is not computers vs. typewriters or the internet vs. libraries. It is virtual connection vs. real contact; substance vs. rumor.

All those things Ms. Goldswasser applauds- IM, texting, blogging - have not changed the fact that people, young and old people, are less trusting of people they are not in the room with. It's easier to flame someone you've never met than yell at a conference or party because distance makes us brave and inexperience allows us to be foolish. While there are many wonderful resources, it is not information that funds and expands access, it's pop culture and porn. (That doesn't mean that pornography is infectious like viral marketing, but that revenues from that industry are are huge and driving a good deal of development.)

Teting and IM are not communication in any sense beyond convenience, they are notes, like a grocery list stuck to a refridgerator. To compare the skill of texting to communication is like comparing the ability to read box scores to the ability to read financial reports. It's actually not much of a leap from ne to the other, but how many people, besides baseball's legendary Lenny Dykstra, make that jump?

To dismiss Ms. Lessing because she uses a typewriter and pens is simply peevish as well as shortsighted. Ms. Lessing is not valued for how she works, but for her work. By Ms. Goldwasser's logic, DaVinci was less of a genius because he didn't use a computer. Besides, when our fragile electrical grid fails, as it will again after a storm or earthquake or overload, the internet will be useless because it will be inaccessible and Ms. Goldberg will praise the wonder of the inexpensive pen and pencil.

This is an apology?

Shuster puts the Clinton family at fault for complaining about unfair coverage. Would Shuster blame the McCain family for complaining about media covering the false issue of extramarital affairs and little black bastard babies? The media floats lies while it gives itself credit for being straightforward - as if insinuating a female candidate is involved in prostitution is anything but insulting, then gets upset when they're called on it.

In a show of shallowness, Shuster then says the public is at fault for paying attention to language not issues. Journalism not only uses but is about language. It is impossible to separate issues from the way they are presented. It as if Shuster thinks that diagnosing illness is separate from medicine.

Schuster has learned nothing. Instead, he's entrenched in ego. His credibility is shot. Shuster shot himself in the foot as he was putting it into his mouth.

Once the media decided the narrative of the Democratic Party campaigns was race versus gender, Edwards was reduced to just another rich, white guy. The media created the story line, then sandbagged Edwards because he didn't fit in it

Last weekend, my sister and I had a party for people to talk about politics. Everyone wanted to learn about how the ideas of each candidate were supposed to come to fruition. We may want to get out of Iraq, but how can we leave without making matters worse or leaving lots of suffering people? What changes in taxation will fund universal health care? How long will it take to make that happen and who will help? Who will you consider for all those vital staff positions at FEMA, the EPA, the Supreme Court? Will anyone come out and say waterboarding is torture and torture doesn't increase our safety but diminishes our country?

Despite Edwards' attempts to steer the "debates" and the story lines toward issues, pundits and reporters hyped silly stuff and didn't fact check, investigate or ask pointed questions about plans. The media may thrive on discord and love a well-constructed narrative regardless of genuineness or accuracy, but voters prefer conversation.

We don’t live in sound bites. We plan, we consider and we discuss what to do. Our lives progress the way conversations move, mostly meandering in a general direction with moments of intense focus plus loads of questions, opinions and emotion. Our lives are built of details like budgeting, cleaning up after ourselves and preparing for the future.

Besides, it's the function of the so-called Fourth Estate to explain difficult processes, to challenge power and those seeking it. Edwards tried to steer the public discussion toward real issues, but he didn't fit our picture of what change looks like. I'm afraid we've settled for the image, not substance.