I'm not talking about the debates over the anonymous source who told The Weekly Standard that Beauchamp signed documents stating that he made everything up--something that no one, not even the Army, has confirmed--or how thoroughly TNR tried to fact-check his pieces before they went to print.

What I'm talking about is the intellectually dishonest narrative that is being injected into the debate; a narrative which holds that--against all evidence to the contrary--TNR's editors are anti-war lefties out to smear the military, and that the American media views American soldiers as bloodthirsty monsters. It is an argument based on assumption and conjecture, and a quick look at recent history blows it to bits. But that hasn't stopped several columnists from intentionally ignoring the facts in order to score partisan points.

Charles Krauthammer weighs in on the issue this morning, asking, "Why did the New Republic run" Beauchamp's story?

Because it fits perfectly into the most virulent narrative of the antiwar left. The Iraq war - 'George Bush's war'... has caused not only the sorrow and destruction that we read about every day. It has, most perniciously, caused invisible damage... It has perverted and corrupted the young soldiers who went to Iraq, and now return morally ruined.

That's quite a statement.

The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, who has been all over the Beauchamp story, read from the same partisan cue card yesterday when he toldNewsweek--without a shred of evidence to back it up--that "this story fits really well into [TNR's] narrative and the left's narrative of the soldier as both victim and perpetrator of the war."

But a piece by Jeff Emanuel in the National Review today really takes the cake. Emanuel (who is currently embedded with the Army in Iraq), seems--more than even mind-readers like Krauthammer and Goldfarb--to be able to glean the private thoughts of TNR editors and the press in general, which gives rise to an unintentionally hilarious bit of sloppy partisan posturing. He writes that TNR "offered stories by Beauchamp which validated their views of the military and of the war"

Emanuel has apparently decided that the press is convinced that the majority of American soldiers are little more than immoral brutes, and that stories like the ones Beauchamp told are "the rule in the United States military, rather than the exception." If you think I'm taking this quote out of context, Emanuel makes this point two more times, each time failing to make even the most rudimentary attempt to back his charges up with examples of this monolithic mindset in the press.

He says further down that:

If one assumes that the magazine's editors and its allies on the Left had been waiting for just this opportunity -- an opportunity not only to validate their deeply held views of the American military...then its easier to see why they ran these articles without thoroughly checking them." He caps his piece off with another shot: "members of the press are still searching for the Next Big Story which will show the military for the inhuman, war-scarred outfit they believe it to be.

All this TNR "hates the troops" stuff can be refuted pretty easily. But it shouldn't have to be, since Krauthammer, Goldfarb, and Emanuel are all bright guys, and are therefore no doubt fully aware that they're spinning some serious bullshit. That's why they don't even attempt to support their allegations with evidence.

All three, if pressed, would likely recall that TNR was a pretty big supporter of the war, publishing plenty of pieces explicitly calling for war in 2002 and early 2003. And Senior Editor Lawrence F. Kaplan can hardly be called an "anti-war lefty," since he has written pieces as recently as a few months ago arguing against a hasty withdrawal from Iraq. The magazine even published an editor's note in May supporting the "surge" of 30,000 more troops into Iraq.

The magazine's support for the war was so strong in 2002 and 2003 that former editor Peter Beinart, who was one of the loudest voices advocating for invasion, very publicly backtracked from his original position last year. Similarly, in November 2006, an editorial by "The Editors" voiced regret for the magazine's support for the war, but hardly took an anti-war stance:

This magazine has long advocated deploying U.S. power to halt the mass slaughter of innocents. Saddam Hussein distinguished himself at the mass slaughter of innocents: About this, there can be no dispute. Yet, in this case, we supported an invasion that has led to the same savage result...

The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war...American power may not be capable of transforming ancient cultures or deep hatreds, but that fact does not absolve us of the duty to conduct a foreign policy that takes its moral obligations seriously. As we attempt to undo the damage from a war that we never should have started, our moral obligations will not vanish, and neither will our strategic needs.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending TNR's decision to publish Beauchamp's stories, as we've since learned that at least parts of them are not true. What I am defending is the importance of being an honorable broker of information when it comes to mounting an argument. Krauthammer, Goldfarb, and Emanuel are all writers who publish frequently. They know how to make arguments and deploy facts to make their case. That they are subverting reality with such sloppy and intentionally intellectually dishonest claims about the press is worse than being wrong. It's being wrong on purpose. That is essentially what they're accusing Beauchamp and TNR of doing.

The original speech (the text of which can be found here) did make big news for Obama’s comments about breaking with the administration’s current friendly approach to Pakistan and its president, Pervez Musharraf. Obama criticized the Bush administration’s hands-off strategy, which has left the search for Al Qaeda leadership -- thought to be comfortably ensconced in mountainous western Pakistan -- largely in the hands of the Pakistani authorities, who have made little if any progress on this front. Obama said that, as president, he would not only withhold “the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid” until the Pakistanis do more to prevent their country from becoming a safe haven for Bin Laden, et al., but asserted that, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

So, did the media blow this promise out of proportion, as Obama claimed?

This is how the The New York Times reported on his remarks in its initial story: Obama said “…the United States should shift its military focus away from the Iraq war to a broader fight against Islamic extremism, vowing to dispatch American forces to eradicate terrorist camps in Pakistan if that nation failed to take such action.”

Here’s The Washington Post’s lead: “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.”

And The Los Angeles Times description: “Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, in a major foreign policy address, took a hard line on terrorism today, saying the United States may need to strike targets inside its ally Pakistan if the government does not escalate its fight against militants.”

None of the major papers used the word, “invasion.” Every journalist who listened to Obama’s speech understood that he meant strategic unilateral strikes against Al Qaeda camps or limited operations to capture terrorists. The expressions used were, “eradicate terrorist camps” and “strike targets.” No one said “invade.” That’s not to say the more right-wing news outlets, like the New York Post, didn’t grab the opportunity to mock Obama as being hopelessly naïve about foreign policy (it even went Dukakis on him, posing him on a tank with a photo-shopped helmet on his head). But, as far as I can see, the papers that could be expected to cover Obama’s speech responsibly, did so.

The problem was with Obama. He wasn’t precise enough in his description of a delicate subject. In his haste to shore up his foreign policy credentials in the wake of the YouTube debate kerfuffle he left open a small crack for all kinds of interpretations, including the unlikely one that he has in mind an Iraq-style invasion of Pakistan. After all, Obama’s clarification yesterday came after he was repeatedly questioned by confused Iowans who had misunderstood his words. It didn’t help, of course, that the right took advantage of his vagueness, with Mitt Romney dubbing the senator “Dr. Strangelove” at the last Republican debate.

It’s easy to blame the media when a candidate feels the public has misunderstood his position. But in this case, as in many to come, the press didn’t blow it, the candidate did.

O'Malley and Ford caution these Democrats about "the temptation to ignore the vital center" in the heat of the primary nomination. Rather, they propose capturing the center—and creating a lasting majority. "But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out."

The Weekly Standard has an in-depth profile of another one-time presidential hopeful and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Despite occasionally focusing on the "horse race"—and Huckabee's flavorless poll numbers and dollors, Terry Eastland—publisher of Standard, unearths one of the dozen low-profile GOP contenders often ignored by the mainstream media. Huckabee's authenticity—as an open critic of President Bush and staunch religious conservative—his "I feel your pain" rhetoric, and his unifying manner all point to a different, and familiar native of Hope, Arkansas. (Eastland writes, "Huckabee was reelected governor in 1998, winning the support of 48 percent of black voters, according to CNN's exit polls.") Eastland traces his career path ("a faith journey") from Protestant ministry to politics, and his nine-month weight-lose journey as chronicled in Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork.

While the article is somewhat digressive, it still manages to illuminate an unfamiliar candidate, and his passion, like former President Clinton, for communicating his message. "Probably the best preparation I ever had to be a governor was to be a pastor of a local congregation," Huckabee says. In fact, Eastland recounts his personal history, "At age 14 he took a job with a 1,000-watt radio station in Hope...At Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia...he worked on-air 40 hours each week at a local radio station. After a year and a half at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, he left to become communications director for a ministry headed up by the evangelist James Robison. At the time, he was only 21." Even if he bows out of the race early, this is the preview of a serious VP prospect.

But some of the outrage, it seems, was the result of sloppy reporting or editing. In initial reports, the AP reprinted Obama's quote without explaining that he was responding to a question about Al Qaeda, so that it appeared he was dismissing any possibility of using nuclear weapons in any situation. Matt Drudge's link to the AP piece was headlined, "Obama: No Nukes." The AP was called on it by a number of bloggers:

"This week, Obama has been slammed, repeatedly, as a result of sloppy reporting," writes Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger Report.

MyDD parses Obama's stance on nukes, and asks: "Maybe we could learn a lesson about pouncing too quickly?"

Still, writes Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic Online, Obama "should have been more careful with his words."

Also in today's news, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf condemned Obama for saying he would pursue terrorists in Pakistan if Musharraf refused to act. It seems Obama is being damned for aggressiveness as well as restraint.

Read of the Day: George Lakoff writes on Huffington Post about Obama, Edwards, Clinton, the Bush administration and the use of silence and euphemism in propaganda. Sometimes avoiding blanket statements is a way of avoiding public debate by refusing to talk about an issue like a nuclear strike, he says.

But does this particular argument really, as the The New York Times tells us today, go “to the heart of what each stands for as a candidate”?

It’s worth it to take another look at what actually happened at the debate.

A YouTube questioner—Stephen from San Francisco—wondered if upon taking office any of the candidates “would be willing” to make a dramatic gesture like Anwar Sadat’s 1977 surprise visit to Israel and “meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration” with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.

The question was posed to Obama and he responded quickly: “ I would.” But what he then said put a finer point on his initial outburst. “And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them—which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration—is ridiculous.”

The point he was trying to make is that he would employ a different model than the one used by the Bush administration. He would use diplomacy as the starting point, as a tool for getting somewhere, and not as a reward or punishment in and of itself.

What did Hillary then say when the same question was posed to her? Basically, the same thing. She promised a “very vigorous diplomatic effort,” and then said that she does “certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.”

The distinction that she did draw was that she would not meet with these leaders personally in the first year without assessing their “intentions.” But that, it seems, is pro forma with all diplomacy. Sadat’s visit to Israel—the example cited by the questioner and the one Obama was emulating in his response—did not happen on a whim, it was built on years of trilateral negotiations between Egypt, Israel, and America.

The real difference was in tone. Obama said, “I would,” and then qualified his answer. Clinton backed into it: “Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year,” and then qualified her answer, starting with what she would “promise.” And the qualifications that both added amounted to the same message: they want to reengage with the world and abandon the Bush paradigm of granting diplomacy a lesser status.

Sure, they’re gut, initial response speaks to their political instincts, with Clinton more cautious and Obama more eager, but this doesn’t change the fact that they were essentially expressing the same thing.

How fitting, though, that our first real aggressive face-off is an argument about style that masquerades as one about substance?

Obama said yes, he would. Clinton promptly chastised him as "naïve" and willing to be used as a propaganda tool by dictators. And just like that, the press had something to inflate into wide headlines for thin stories for the rest of the week. Margaret Carlson wrote at Bloomberg.com: "In fact, Obama is the only candidate who gets under Clinton's skin, and the aftermath of a mild exchange at the debate shows just how much." David Brooks called Obama's answer, "a rookie mistake."

In The Washington Post, columnist Charles Krauthammer explained why it's bad to meet with world leaders with no preconditions. "For Barack Obama, it was strike two."

Blogger Brian Beutler meanwhile managed to put this much-ado-about-nothing into proper perspective: "Conservatives are saying exactly what you'd expect--that Hillary's correct, and that diplomacy is bad and that nobody will ever support Obama's idea. Liberals, of course, responded as they always do--by neglecting to evaluate the merits of the two positions and offering instead a maddeningly typical meta-analysis of the argument--one that defaults with 100 percent regularity to the idea that only hawkish ideas seem serious."

And Greg Sargent over at Talking Points Memo shut the door further, noting that, as the news cycle has become a battleground for the Clinton and Obama campaigns, the other candidates' answers to this question have been totally neglected. Specifically, "I'm just saying that the fact that Edwards came down on Hillary's side deserves to be part of the discussion, if only because his view of the matter suggests that perhaps there isn't as much daylight between Hillary and Obama's positions as Camp Hillary--and, now, Camp Obama--want us to believe."

In case there is still any doubt that Clinton's campaign is getting excellent mileage out of this throwaway story, Politico's Ben Smith also noticed that Clinton is remarkably well-positioned to rebut Obama's accusation in the press. Campaign news on CNN today included Obama's accusation that Clinton is "Bush-Cheney Lite" followed by "Clinton vs. Pentagon." "This is one of those moments when you get the sense that Clinton's playing chess while the rest of us play checkers," he writes.

Thomas' latest "Baghdad Diaries" missive, in which he recounts his mess-hall mocking of a woman who was severely injured by an IED, running over dogs in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and toying with the skull fragments of an Iraqi child, has drawn the fire of the community of military bloggers, as well as The Weekly Standard blogger, Michael Goldfarb, who are doing all they can to disprove Thomas's stories.

TNR's editor, Franklin Foer, who declined CJR's request for an interview, told Howard Kurtz on Sunday that he, along with another editor, have met Thomas and that he's "been in touch with several members of the author's unit who corroborate the details under question." That's fine as far as it goes, but Foer's contention that "conservative bloggers make a bit of a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq," true or not, sounds more like a time-buying dodge rather than anything else.

Still, even given some of the anecdotal evidence percolating in the blogosphere that suggests the "Baghdad Diarist" stories might be compelling inventions--or at least exaggerated composites--there has yet to be any concrete evidence offered to debunk any of Thomas' stories.

It's been established that Thomas is stationed at Forward Operating Base Falcon, outside of Baghdad, prompting soldiers and contractors who claim to be presently serving, or to have previously served there, to write in to certain blogs and strongly contest that any of the incidents Thomas describes could have occurred.

Major Kirk Luedeke, the public affairs officer at FOB Falcon, is among the critics of Thomas' pieces. Major Luedeke told me that his office's informal investigation has narrowed the field of possible authors to "one company of about 100 troops, based on some of his previous references about places, equipment and activities. Beyond that there's not much we can do to discover his identity."

He stresses that the investigation "is not about curtailing one's right to free speech. It is about holding someone accountable when they possibly hurt our mission here with false accounts. We take great pride in the dangerous, but rewarding work our men and women do each day, so for one to besmirch those achievements and accomplishments with what certainly seems at the very least to be embellishments and half-truths, it's something we take seriously." As well he should. And his investigation counts for more than all the anecdotal evidence the blogosphere is tossing out, unless, of course, someone turns up something conclusive. As it stands now, the blogs are providing context, but aren't doing any investigative reporting on their own that disproves Thomas' claims. Goldfarb writes today that while TNR has yet to prove the veracity of Thomas' tales, "numerous experts and soldiers have written in to question 'Thomas''s account of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle careening around the streets of Baghdad in an attempt to kill as many stray dogs as possible. These experts tell us that the account could not have happened as 'Thomas' describes owing to the mechanics of the vehicle and the position of the driver." The narrative being constructed by these "experts and soldiers" is fine as far as it goes, but neither side has proven anything yet--something to keep in mind before we convict or acquit TNR.

Finally, it looks like there's some scrambling going on internally at TNR. The New York Times quotes Foer this morning as saying that he knows with "near certainty" that Thomas is a soldier--but on TNR's blog, The Plank, this morning, an Editors' note takes issue with this, saying that while the Times writes that "TNR knows with 'near certainty' that Scott Thomas is a soldier in Iraq ... in fact, we know this with absolute certainty."

Even if TNR is right about Thomas, the larger question is whether Thomas is right about what he writes. A little transparency, please.

After weeks of anticipatory coverage (it wasn't all on CNN) that kicked around the titillating question, "Is the YouTube-CNN debate paradigm-changing, historic, etc.?" today's mainstream coverage is more of a collective sigh, a caveat-laden maybe.

A survey of major newspapers and their political blogs shows that nearly everyone can agree on a couple of things: it was different, but not that different, from the anemic political "debates" we've been staging for at least the last thirty years. The news articles were mostly typical roundups, and everyone seemed to enjoy mentioning the debate's cuter video moments, such as a melting snowman who asked about global warming. Among the papers' political blogs, meanwhile, were some worthwhile reads, including some smart live-blogging of the event.

The headlines sort of capture the sobriety: USA Today opts for "Public presses Dems with video questions." The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post sound a bit more optimistic with, "YouTube presidential debate blazes trail" and "Public Voice Adds Edge to Debate," respectively, while The New York Times took care to land on a skeptical note, declaring "Novel Debate Format, but Same Old Candidates."

The USAT debate story is a routine summation, with little emphasis on the format except to say that answers "were in many cases sharper and more confrontational than in the candidates' first three debates." The paper's political blog was updated live during the event, but only with a rough transcript and no original commentary.

The L.A. Times' take on the debate stresses the novelty of the format a bit more than USAT, noting that "The unusual format drew the candidates out on matters rarely discussed at the presidential level." Online, the paper's bloggers weigh in with more pointed remarks on the candidates' performances (Hillary was "consistently cool" but Richardson "flashed a reminder of his past bad habits"), and the criticism that CNN promoted the event with "increasing hyperbole" and despite the hype, the debate remained "a one-way conversation."

The Post wastes some space declaring that the debate "underscores the arrival of the Internet as a force in politics," adding that it was "different," as the "citizen-interrogators" presented the "most diverse" set of questions for a presidential debate to date. The Post's political blog, The Fix ignores any mush about the historic nature of the moment and gives a snappy wrap-up, pinning the piece on the theme of "experience versus change," or Clinton's stump speech versus Obama's. Another Post blog, Channel '08, which is a partnership between the Post and prezvid.com (Blogger Jeff Jarvis's effort to track the campaign as it unfolds on YouTube) calls the debate "a terribly wasted opportunity" and blames CNN for including too many candidates, too few issues, and allowing the same old talking points to dominate. "This should have been a debate held online: candidates answering questions directly without the need for CNN, Anderson Cooper, or their questions."

Meanwhile, Tom Shales makes several interesting points in his TV blog, including that the "populist" spirit of YouTube is itself an illusion. "It could have been 30,000 [entries, instead of 3000] and still not been remotely representative--or even particularly helpful." For further evidence, see today's piece in the Post on the digital divide. Shales was annoyed that "Not every candidate was asked every question, so the format was inherently inequitable," and criticized Cooper's vigilant time-keeping, which led to a debate full of sound bites--"the kind of thing that has helped trivialize issues and discourage voter interest."

The New York Times acknowledges that the debate was "unlike any that had come before," but quickly points out that "Candidates frequently lapsed into their talking points, and there was little actual debate among them." Katharine Q. Seelye live-blogged the debate with smart, off-the-cuff commentary. "The use of questions on video may have been groundbreaking, but the answers, while often passionate, were not," she wrote, But it's hard to know if the format elicited a new kind of response. Seelye writes approvingly, "The videos added such a personal element and an unpredictable element, and made the debate seem so broadly open to everyone in the country, that it seems unlikely that future debates will not include them."

The Times headline read "Women Supportive but Skeptical of Clinton, Poll Says." The piece stressed remaining ambivalence about Clinton among some women voters, particularly those who are older or married. The poll's latest finding—not very new at all—points to "warning signs" for Clinton, while labeling her an historically polarizing figure: "opinion is now evenly divided with 40 percent of registered voters having a favorable opinion and 40 percent unfavorable. (Among all respondents to the poll, 41 percent viewed her favorably and 38 percent unfavorably.)"

CBS News took a different approach to reporting the poll. Offering new insight into the general public's notion of her "inevitability"—more sanguine about Mrs. Clinton's prospects—the network had a strikingly different headline: "Poll: 63% Say Clinton 'Likely' To Win CBS/NYT Poll: Majorities Of Both Men And Women Think New York Democrat Will Be Next President." And the story's first sentence: "A new CBS News/New York Times poll out Thursday shows 63 percent of voters believe it's likely that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton will be elected the first woman president in U.S. history if she wins her party's nomination."

So, one poll but two notably contrasting views—who was right? We already know that opinion of Clinton is mixed—and of voters' strong responses, for and against. But the fresh insight here is from CBS: the sense Clinton's inevitability and formidability—held once by Democrats alone—is leaking into the general public, so much that a majority of Americans think she will win.

The Pentagon draws up contingency plans for just about any situation that might arise, and given the fact that at some point--be it six months or six years--the American military will pull at least some troops out of Iraq, one would hope that someone over at Hell's Bottom has thought through the logistics. But staring such logistical realities in the face is apparently verboten in the Bush administration, much like putting together plans for what might happen when the shooting stopped after the invasion in 2003.

While the story seems to be getting more play in the blogosphere than anywhere else, several mainstream outlets joined in grossly misreporting what Clinton said in her May 23 letter to the Pentagon, falsely accusing her of demanding that the Pentagon draw up plans for withdrawal.

The New York Post, for example, reports that Clinton is "demanding the U.S. military whip up plans for withdrawal from Iraq," while the Associated Press maintains that Clinton "urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces." ABC News' Jake Tapper also has a piece up on the network's Web site headlined "Clinton Demands Pentagon Plan for Withdrawal." Over at the New York Times's "The Caucus" blog, Kate Phillips says that "The letter from Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman was in response to Senator Clinton's request in May for the Defense Department to draw up proposals to get the troops out of the battlefields."

Only problem is none of this is true. In fact, it's not even close to what Clinton said in her letter, which makes me wonder if any of the reporters actually bothered to read the letter in question.

Just for fun, let's see what Clinton really said.

I write to request that you provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress--including the Senate Armed Services Committee--with briefings on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, please provide an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning....

In light of growing violence and insecurity in Iraq, the continued lack of political progress by Prime Minister al-Maliki, the Iraqi Defense Ministry's level of contingency planning, and the will of the American Congress to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, it is imperative that the Department of Defense prepare plans for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces. As you well know, any military operation requires contingency planning so that the military and our troops are prepared if the current plan is unsuccessful. It would be irresponsible not to engage in similar planning in Iraq.

There you have it. A "case for," absolutely. A "request to see," indeed. But if you see any "demands" in there, please let me know. Or better yet, e-mail the reporters who are getting the story wrong, and gently urge them to read the letter they're writing about. Really, it's not that long--they might actually learn something.

First up was a conversation between New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and Google CEO Eric Schmidt. The exchange, which hardly promised to break news, nevertheless disappointed even my modest expectations, degenerating into little more than an hour-long PR pitch for Google with multiple references to Friedman's "The World is Flat" theory. For an example of the white-hot rhetoric on display, at one point Schmidt admitted that, "I expect technology will have a significant effect on the '08 election."

Yep.

On the plus side, there were other aspects of the conference that delivered more. Lee Rainey from the Pew Internet Project delivered a great ten-minute presentation on how the public has used the Internet for political news in the last few election cycles. Rainey said that Pew estimates that 54 million people used the Internet for news or politics in 2006, while in 1996 the number was a mere 7 million. That's the good news. The bad news, which Rainey didn't present as such, is that the while the median age of Internet users who logged on for political news in 1996 was thirty-three, it rose to thirty-nine in 2006, even while the number of minorities and women logging on has grown.

This age gap is potentially worrisome. The story, as we've seen it presented time and again, is that the younger you are, the more comfortable you are online, and the more you rely on the Web for news. So does the fact that readers of political news online are getting older mean that younger people just aren't using the Internet for news in the way that everyone thinks they are? Or does it mean that there are simply more older folks going online for their political news? No one suggested an answer at the conference. Either way, the increase in the average age was surprising, and is something we should all start to pay a little more attention to in the future.

While panelists, attendees, and reporters loitered in the "Google Lounge" between talks, munching on complimentary candy (the Swedish Fish were fantastic), most of the action in the Lounge took place along the walls, where everyone scrambled for electrical outlet space to charge their laptops and handheld devices, and where business cards were being passed back and forth with a frenzy that would make a Washington lobbyist weep.

But the panels were what these schmoozers really came for. I think. The panel that looked the most promising to me was "Embracing Voter-Generated Content: Risks and Benefits," with MySpace's Jeff Berman, Talkingpointsmemo's Josh Marshall, MoveOn's Eli Pariser, and Utah Congressman Steve Urquhart.

Alas, the event's hour-long time slot was largely eaten up by Berman and Pariser's sniping about the evils and glories of MySpace, with Pariser saying that, "There ought to be a way for us to own our own community rather than have the decision come down from Rupert Murdoch"--conveniently ignoring the fact that MySpace is indeed a private company.

That's not to say that Pariser didn't have something to say. He made an excellent point in talking about the tone of contemporary political debate, both online and off, arguing that for "people-power politics" to realize its potential, the media and the public must move beyond "gotcha" politics, since such attacks make campaigns timid out of a fear that some out-of-context quote will land on YouTube.

Urquhart, the founder of the promising Politicopia site, a political Wiki, also had some interesting things to say. His goal with the site is to "engage the smart mob in the middle" of the political debate, rather than the extremes at either, which he says currently dominate online political debate. "Why do the extremes dominate?" he asked--because that's where the money and the power are.

Some in the audience disagreed with his pitch for the political middle, saying that the middle isn't inspired by politics, and don't take sides because it's not invested in the debate. But it seems that is precisely Urquhart's point, and while we're not placing bets on whether he can draw the "middle" into the wider debate raging online, his political Wiki is an intriguing idea, and was by far the most interesting thing that I heard all day.

Given the intellectual firepower at the event, that's pretty disappointing.

This follows on the heels of a declaration by the Iraqi government that reporters will no longer be allowed access to sites of bombings and other violent acts. As IraqSlogger quoted Iraqi Interior Ministry Operations Director Brigadier General Abdul Karim Khalaf on Sunday, the reasons for the ban are:

To protect journalists from being victims in follow on attacks (insurgents often target first responders).

-- "We do not want evidence disturbed before detectives arrive."

-- "The respect of human rights by not photographing dead bodies who fall by bombings and other incidents."

-- "The Ministry does not want to give terrorists information that they achieved their goals."

There are few actions more undemocratic, and harmful to the concept of a democracy, than banning journalists from being able to do their job in the public sphere, not to mention that chasing journos away with gunfire, while undoubtedly effective, is hardly the best way to handle the situation.

Reporters Without Borders isn't having any of it, saying in a statement that "It is vital that journalists can report on the security situation throughout the country without it being seen as incitement to violence. When the streets become impassable and the authorities provide no information about the attacks in real time, the role of the reporter becomes essential. Coverage of these attacks allows people to evaluate the security risk and to avoid dangerous areas."

It's also important to note that this isn't the first time the Iraqi government has gone toe-to-toe with the Iraqi media. Back in December, the Interior Ministry banned journalists from covering the Iraqi parliament for two weeks before allowing them back in, and last November the ministry created a media surveillance unit set up in order to allow the government to bring legal action against the press. The Interior Ministry said at the time that it would "take all necessary measures against media that broadcast mendacious reports" and would "not hesitate to prosecute in order to prevent them from diverting Iraqis from the fight against terrorism."

All this comes at a time when Iraq remains just as deadly for journalists as ever. As IraqSlogger, which does a great job in keeping up with all the news from Iraq that flies just under the radar, reported earlier this month, the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory in Iraq (JFOI) "registered 123 violations against Iraqi journalists and media workers in one year during the period between May 3, 2006, and May 3, 2007. In its annual report published on Thursday, JFOI said the total number of violations had doubled over the last year."

While this latest restriction on journalists might not rise to the level of life and death, it shouldn't be taken lightly, either. We've seen countless images of wrecked cars and twisted bodies strewn across the streets of Iraq for four years now, but it's imperative that these atrocities continue to be recorded for history. To record these images and stories -- and to keep recording them -- is what journalists do, and even in wartime, a democratically-elected government should know that.

We explored the topic a few weeks back with regard to how Josh Marshall and his site, Talkingpointsmemo.com, doggedly connected the dots on the Justice Department's firing of several U.S. attorneys until the rest of the mainstream press finally pitched in with some digging of its own.

In a sense, the story of TPM and the attorneys is somewhat of an outlier when it comes to the kind of story typically hyped, or even broken, by blogs, which more often than not tend to fall back on the crutch of pure partisanship, and exist more in the world of fact checking the MSM, than in the world of investigative reporting.

Scherer's central point is that opposition researchers working for various political campaigns are having quite a bit of success this year placing damaging items about rival candidates with mainstream reporters and bloggers, and in that way are helping to drive coverage of the campaign in general. Scherer admits that this phenomenon is not new, and suggests that the difference is a matter of degree: "What has changed is the pace and profusion of stories based on opposition research, especially so early in the campaign cycle. There are now more outlets clamoring for the information than ever before, and more competition from reporters for the latest 'scoop.'"

But before you go and get all Jeff Jarvis on us, proclaiming another blogospheric victory over the hopelessly overmatched MSM, let's take a look at some of the stuff that's being broken online. Scherer points to two recent stories: John McCain's "Bomb Iran" mess a few weeks back, and the Politico's vital scoop about John Edwards' $400 haircut. Not exactly seismic stuff, but they are nevertheless stories that can--and will--be used against the candidates whenever their foes get the chance.

Another example popped up on Thursday, when TPM's Greg Sergeant called attention to a story that initially appeared in the Anamosa, Iowa, Journal-Eureka about Rudy Giuliani's campaign. Apparently, Rudy's people contacted an Iowa couple and asked to stage a campaign event at their farm. The couple agreed, only to be contacted later by the campaign and informed that since they weren't "worth a million dollars" and Rudy is "campaigning on the Death Tax right now," the rally at their place was being cancelled.

Sargent wondered, "Will the haircut-obsessed political media cover it?"

TPM guest blogger Steve Benen picked up the thread this weekend, writing that "it seems the political establishment doesn't care" about the story, and that "the story hasn't been mentioned in any of the major dailies, the wires, or on any national TV broadcasts. C'mon, assignment editors, this is an easy one. It obviously isn't nearly as fascinating as a Democrat getting an expensive haircut, but couldn't CNN send a camera crew to the VonSpreckens' farm?"

But, do we really want CNN send a camera crew out to the farm to cover a cancelled campaign event? Or reporters to give the story the same legs as they have given other marginal stories, like the Edwards haircut? Politics is a messy business, and while the Giuliani campaign demonstrated just how calculating it can be, is that at all surprising?

Now, we don't know if some opposition research spurred the initial Journal-Eureka story on Giuliani's snub of the Iowa farmers, or how TPM caught wind of it (our money is on an alert reader), but the larger point here is that while TPM does some great reporting on its own, not all campaign-trail stories are created equal. If it is true, as Salon's Scherer suggests, that the influence of opposition research is growing, then that strikes us as all the more reason to approach these "stories" with a heavy dose of skepticism and pursue selectively. Breaking a story is still a great thing, even in an era when scoops are matched so quickly that the reader won't ever notice who got there first, but it's not the only thing, and every campaign gaffe doesn't need to be splashed across the front pages. If we start down this road, it will be a long campaign season, indeed.

But that doesn't mean that everything Web 2.0 touches is gold. Take for example an online ad the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson unveiled earlier this week. It was posted to YouTube on May 8, and as of this morning had over 37,000 views. Not bad, and it sure is a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to run national TV spots. Of course, those 37,000 views still pale in comparison to the 1.9 million views a video of a drunken David Hasselhoff eating a hamburger recently racked up on YouTube. (Ah, the Internet...the last great hope for an informed citizenry.)

We'll admit, comparing the two clips isn't necessarily fair, since we all know that most people would rather watch celebrity-related schlock than a campaign commercial any day. But still, there's something to be said about Richardson placing the ads online (which isn't exactly a sea change in how this incessantly blogged election is shaping up, but the ads are generating enough buzzthat they're making some people, shall we say, uncomfortable.) Kevin Drum summed it up nicely yesterday when he wrote that it's only a matter of time before the ads "go viral" and eventually The New York Times will write another thumbsucker about the power of new media, complete with chin-scratching quotes from Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis." Or as Wonkette joked, "Every single campaign director and political reporter and media specialist and pollster is currently slumped in their chair, slack-jawed, wondering what it all means."

Since we can scratch our chins along with the best of 'em, here's our shot: it doesn't really mean anything. It's not like the spots were made specifically for the Web. The Richardson campaign took out a one-week, $110,000 ad buy in Iowa yesterday, where the same commercials will run on local television. Odds are, more than 37,000 people will see the ads in Iowa, though of course, more than that will probably see the ads thanks to bloggers like Drum, who embed the video on their sites.

All this means is that by making the ads available on the Web, more people will see them (and for free) than would have in those dark, pre-Web days. That's great for campaigns, but as the Richardson TV ad buy shows, the American political machine is still a long, long way from hitching its star to the Internet.

The Christian Science Monitor's Dante Chinni touched on this earlier this week, writing that despite the fact that "a growing democracy in media is allowing people and candidates to go around the old news sources," these old news sources still are a long way from extinction. For all the blogs and YouTube ads, elections are still decided by which candidate can raise the most money, which one has the support of his or her party, and, as Chinni says, "old-media press coverage," since the vast majority of Americans still get their news from television and newspapers.

Ads on the Web are great, and we're sure that this election season will see plenty of ink spilled about "Web 2.0" and the effect it has on the election. But in the end, the battle is still going to be fought--for better or worse--in the old media, which will undoubtedly be fact-checked and corrected by "new media" every step of the way. Just don't look for Richardson to surpass Hasselhoff any time soon.

Rich gave a good synopsis of why the sight of journalists clinking drinks with press secretaries should offend us all, especially in these days:

This fete is a crystallization of the press's failures in the post-9/11 era: it illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media in its shows. Such is literally the case at the annual dinner, where journalists serve as a supporting cast, but it has been figuratively true year-round. The press has enabled stunts from the manufactured threat of imminent 'mushroom clouds' to 'Saving Private Lynch' to 'Mission Accomplished,' whose fourth anniversary arrives on Tuesday. For all the recrimination, self-flagellation and reforms that followed these journalistic failures, it's far from clear that the entire profession yet understands why it has lost the public's faith.

What a bizarre feeling, then, when we opened the paper this morning and scanned the list of guests at last night's white tie dinner at the White House, in honor of Queen Elizabeth's visit. Along with the football players, racehorse jockeys, and the ubiquitous Henry Kissinger, were the following four names and affiliations:

David Gregory, White House correspondent, NBC.

Steven Holland, White House correspondent, Reuters.

Richard Wolffe, White House correspondent, Newsweek.

Robin Roberts, ABC.

Huh? Have these people not learned that, at the very least, being seen in a tux schmoozing with Condi and Cheney and Bush undermines our confidence in their abilities to report honestly on these leaders? If anything, this should be a time to do as the Times has done, and retreat from these kinds of public gatherings of press and president. There is no benefit to the news organization or the reporter for attending such an event--except, of course, if you consider the five-course meal that featured "spring pea soup with fern leaf lavender," "saddle of spring lamb," and three different wines.

Don't get us wrong. The members of the press who were there to cover the event--as opposed to attending it--did get to taste part of the meal. They were given samples of the petit-fours that would be served for dessert. But that's about as much as any good reporter should stomach.