Ah, pundit speculation. It's a great sport. Too bad none of these guys--print, online, television--have to face consequences for getting it wrong. I would not (usually), however, put columns such as this one in the category of entertainment. Picking a VP is important. And none of us have any hard information. So such columns give us something to think and talk about while we wait.

Ad watches are a good public service. But the reporters who write them must resist making too many specific assertions about a candidate's intentions without applying a transparent and consistent metric. Mostly we're just supposed to believe the reviewer knows what he's talking about. This reviewer missed a biggie: Does McCain have any specific frauds in mind, or is this just a typical political straw man fallacy? Plus, another hole: Give us a link to the video!

This is a variation of the ubiquitous trend story. Get a few experts to pontificate about a topic, and then string the information together to create a trend. In this case: Campaign video ends up online, and a lot of people watch it. What does this really mean for our politics? This story offers only speculation, expert to be sure. Further, what does it mean to be "authentic" online? The article offers no coherent answers. Without a cogent statement of what "authentic" means (and how the sources know), this article falls into meaninglessness.

Typical story following a PR effort or press conference. Probably put together in a rush. Reuters must follow up.

The column suffers from a lack of space--typical of local op-eds that usually run between 400 and 600 words. But the web version of the story could have offered a link to the original research results. This would allow readers to evaluate the data for themselves. There's no excuse for such an omission today.