In yesterday's Observer (UK Sunday paper), in a column by Rafael Behr on the veracity of the Internet:

"Lasy year four reporters for US news network CBS lost their jobs after bloggers exposed as forgeries the documents in a CBS story claiming to prove that George W Bush had dodged the Vietnam draft."

Two things struck me about this, and they kind of go together, in the way that information becomes distilled and things are edited out as conventional wisdom takes shape.

Firstly, the distinction between a blog and a forum has gone missing. Admittedly, there is a spectrum of hybrid forms between the two, but there is a fundamental difference between a forum, where anyone can start a thread, and a blog, where the content is directed, not open. But blogging is a phenomenon, especially to the print media, so it tends to accrue attribution.

Secondly, there is the question of exposure. News media's finest hour is when it exposes wrong-doing, so it's understandable that exposure is trumpeted more than discovery. But no, it wasn't "bloggers" who exposed the forgery, it was "typographers", and in particular the forensic acumen of a certain T. Phinney, fonts program manager for Adobe Systems.

Thomas, your 15 minutes are up.