Predictably, much of the post-debate analysis is obsessively preoccupied with finding the all-important gaffe, that rhetorical slip that , however innocuous, disqualifies one decisively for public office. Many have commented on the element of schadenfreude in the gaffe watch, the excited sensation that comes with seeing public disaster befall another, maybe especially regarding our elected officials and celebrity figures since their failure reassures our wounded sense of equality. But the compulsive scrutiny narrowly directed at even the appearance of minor error is at least partially a function of the extraordinary ignorance our media has of the complex issues of the day, and their subsequent push to make each politial dispute an expression of the divergent personalities of the disputants. Our debates no longer pretend to inform, and apparently the teeming expectation we have of a verbal misstep promises at least that it aims to entertain.
