As Dean noted yesterday, the Romney remarks about bin Laden were taken out of context, by some. That happened earlier this year when the Des Moines paper (MSM) reported a Rudy Giuliani reported only the most controversial of Rudy's comments regarding abortion (that Republicans need to "get beyond issues like that...") In both cases, the quotes were accurate, but didn't inform the represent the nuanses that the candidates intended. And in both cases, bloggers jumped on the quote before getting reading the full context.
Personally, I think that's okay, so long as there is an effort to put it in context -- and to bring the story to closure. Inserting the caveat: "This looks bad -- but I haven't read the whole story yet. We shall see how it plays out ..." goes a long way.
But this stuff is going to happen more and more ...
I guess one good thing to come out of this is taht I do think that both incidents raise legitimate questions, that we should debate:
In the case of Rudy, is it time to move past the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice divide? (My opinion is that this is a fundamental issue and that the GOP must remain the Party of Life).
In the case of Romney, does catching bin Laden really matter? (I think it does matter, but agree that he is not the only bad guy out there...)
... And in the case of the story behind the story, should bloggers run with quotes before reading (or hearing) the full context?