I think the Nagourney article was more about setting conventional wisdom among the gang of 500 than it is about writing the definitive exposition on the state of digital American politics.

Ron Brownstein has written a couple of these "The Internet Will Be Important for 2008" articles. It seems that the members of the political journalist class are competing among one another to be seen as the journalistic authority on net politics.

The Dean and Clark uprisings of 2004 shattered the political press's self-image. They had thought they knew all there was to know, and could precisely predict what was going to happen. 2004 showed that they have a huge blindspot when it comes to online activity.

The article was superficial, disappointing and not nearly critical enough. The political Internet is a fact-free zone. It acts as a megaphone, and the typical Internet site -- liberal or conservative -- is quick to exclude alternative viewpoints. It is mainly a playground for wealthy college grads with too much time on their hands (to which I plead guilty), and zero tolerance for anything that challenges their world view.

That's what the article should have talked about, and it didn't. 'Tis a shame.

Nagourney is a tool and has been since at the least the first time I became aware of his name. If you want credible reporting Nagourney is not the guy you read.

What I want to know is how Nagourney did an entire piece without mentioning Senator Russ Feingold.

Is he stoopid or does he not see what is going on?

Of course I find it interesting that Markos and Jerome both agreed to talk to Nags after so many of us have warned against it for so long.

How badly do you think they were misquoted or quoted out of context?