"We wrote editorials very early on criticizing the misinformation and mischaracterizations of Duke [that appeared in national news accounts]. It was not the Duke that we knew," said Ryan McCartney, the Duke senior who was an editor at the campus paper during the infamous rape scandal.

McCartney participated in a lively rehash this afternoon at the Society of Professional Journalists Conference in Washington of the highs and lows (mostly lows) of news coverage of the 2006 case that ended with the disbarment of rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong.

McCartney said he and his colleagues at The Chronicle knew early on that the case had big problems, and they shared their skepticism with the big-time correspondents from New York and Los Angeles who parachuted into Durham to cover the scandal.

The out-of-towners leaned on the student journalists for background, McCartney said -- then ignored what the young reporters had to say.

"The reporter from Rolling Stone was another example. I remember speaking with her at length. We told her very different versions of what eventually appeared in the magazine. We were very surprised by that," he said.

KC Johnson, the writer behind Durham-in-Wonderland, a blog that became a must-read for reporters, prosecutors and attorneys as it meticulously chronicled the unraveling case, sat on the panel with McCartney.

He said he had never intended to become a media critic until he realized that some major news organizations covering the case had no intentions of correcting flawed or slanted reports.

He saved his sharpest jabs for the Gray Lady: "It became apparent that bloggers knew far more about this case than the reporters from the New York Times."

Ted Vaden, public editor of the Raleigh News & Observer, said his paper was challenged by the aggressive way that bloggers covered the story, but, he adds, "a lot of the blogging was irresponsible, and that drove us, too."

He reminded the journalists in the audience that, in hindsight, it's easy to second-guess the decisions that drove coverage in 2006. It's harder make those news judgments on deadline.

If we learn anything, he says, it's this: "Everyone loves a good narrative, a good story. But narratives aren't news."

-- David Eldridge, managing editor, WashingtonTimes.com

To Democratic senators who say that the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 should be brought back: Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican, called the doctrine "the biggest misnomer since jumbo shrimp" today at the National Heritage Foundation.

He said, "If the transparent attempt to do in the free-speech rights of those who broadcast in America were a C.S.I. episode, there wouldn't be enough mystery to last an entire hour."

He also quoted from an editorial that ran in his Minnesota paper, the St. Paul Pioneer Press: "Fairness is beautiful, especially when it is optional."

When asked about the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Coleman said, "We should lift up and elevate the level of debate."

— Andrew Richards, intern, The Washington Times

There are heroes in America who too often go unsung. The 109 living recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor are determined to correct that.

Led by Paul Bucha, a decorated Vietnam veteran, the Medal of Honor Society announced in a press conference on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial this morning that it is calling for nominations of heroes for a new medal: the "Above and Beyond Citizen Honors."

The announcement featured former Secretary of State Colin Powell; broadcaster and former NFL star Tiki Barber; Holly Petraeus, wife of General David H. Petraeus; and Louis J. Horvitz, an Emmy Award-winning television director.

"What we want to do with this program is illustrate how Americans have answered that call to gallantry in a civilian capacity when that call has come," Gen. Powell said.

The new honor, created by the Medal of Honor Society and by Congress, will be part of a larger, patriotism-themed Constitution Hall event in March that will be telecast on NBC and hosted by Brian Williams.

Some of the performers mentioned for the event include Toby Keith, Gary Sinise and Joe Perry of Aerosmith.

For more information, see www.aboveandbeyond365.com.

— Rob Gutierrez, intern, The Washington Times

Ron Paul is different.

Yes, he's another presidential candidate from Texas, but unlike other politicos with their eye on the White House, this libertarian-minded congressman is anti-Iraq war, anti-abortion, and anti-tax.

Mr. Paul's distinctive positions are the reason the Robert A. Taft Club will have standing-room-only at its Thursday forum, "Congressman Ron Paul: A Conservative Foreign Policy."

He will discuss "why conservatives should abandon nation-building and Wilsonian democracy-spreading, and return back to their non-interventionist and America-First roots," according to the club Web site.

Marcus Epstein founded the Robert A. Taft Club in 2006 due to his discontent with "Beltway conservative politics." Mr. Epstein reiterated that tomorrow's forum will be a nonpartisan event.

Past forums held by the Robert A. Taft Club had an average attendance of about 75 people with multiple panelists. At tomorrow's event, Ron Paul will be the only speaker, but over 300 people have RSVP'd. Mr. Epstein said that the club building can at only occupy 150 people due to fire restrictions.

"At this point, we have a long waiting list. We hope to have similar events, if not with Ron Paul, then with other congressmen in the future," Mr. Epstein said.

— Rob Gutierrez, intern, The Washington Times

Ron Paul may only have single-digit polling numbers, but according to campaign staffers of the Texas Congressman, only Mr. Paul, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have sufficient funds for next year's Republican presidential primary.

Today at the National Press Club, Jonathon Bydlak, Mr. Paul's director of fund raising, said that at this stage, the key question is how much money each candidate has available to spend on the primary.

In an analysis of third-quarter campaign finances, Mr. Bydlak reported that once a candidate's outstanding debt is subtracted from their total primary cash on hand, few Republican candidates will be able to provide funding for the primary election cycle without raising additional funds.

The press conference — held by Mr. Paul's staff — came two days after the release of Monday's campaign finance reports.

To date, the only candidates without outstanding debts are Mr. Paul and Sam Brownback.

If the GOP elections were to be held today, the campaigns of Mitt Romney would be in debt by $8 million; Tom Trancredo, by $188,000; and John McCain, by $53,000.

However, Mr. Paul has yet to see his positive financial standing produce a significant number of supporters, based on polling numbers.

Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder said that Mr. Paul will be spending his funds on advertising in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Their goal is to raise their primary funds to $12 million, Mr. Snyder said. He explained that Mr. Paul has a dedicated support network of 55,000 volunteers.

The following is a list of the available funds each Republican candidate currently has at their disposal to spend during the Republican primary:

UPDATE: TWT's Sara Carter checks in with hotair.com and provides a few extra tidbits about the case.

Our story on a TB-infected Mexican national crisscrossing the U.S. border has created quite a storm in the blogosphere.

Michelle Malkin:

Excellent work uncovering this latest travesty, ladies. But be careful. You know you're not allowed to write about TB and open borders. Someone might threaten to spit on you.

Glenn Reynolds at instapundit.com, under an entry entitled "Homeland Security, Still a Joke:"

I remain surprised that the Democrats haven't made more of an issue out of Homeland Security incompetence.

And Steve Foley at redstate.com surmises, "This interagency cooperation thing is working well for us... no?"

— Tarron Lively, assistant editor, WashingtonTimes.com

Here's video of Rep. Pete Stark apologizing for saying U.S. troops are being sent to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Another apology. Does it make anyone feel any better? Just the latest hollow exercise in meaningless mea culpas.

Of course the original comment is offensive! Gracious, what's so wrong with offensive?

What has happened to the country where loudmouths like Stark, or Al Sharpton, or Don Imus, or Rush Limbaugh, or Anne Coulter once had the right to be controversial, blunt, or even stupid?

-- David Eldridge, managing editor, WashingtonTimes.com

The United Nations is ill-equipped to address racism around the world because Muslim countries have "hijacked" human rights issues in the organization, said panelists at a Hudson Institute forum today.

Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said that over the 20 years she has been involved with the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights, she has never seen a U.N. resolution on human rights in Sudan. But she has seen multiple resolutions on Israel. Ms. Bayefsky believes these anti-Israeli resolutions are supported by pro-Palestinian Muslim nations.

Like Ms. Bayefsky, Paul Marshall, another Hudson senior fellow; Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Harvard Law School; and Fahad Nazer, resident fellow at the Institute of Gulf Affairs, all believe that a proposed 2009 United Nations World Conference on Racism is another attempt by Muslim countries to co-opt the issue of human rights for their own gain.

The conference's target is "Islamophobia," a term used to describe discrimination against Islam and Muslims. The U.N. members advocating a prohibition against Islamophobia include Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Mr. Marshall said today the proposed conference's "theological iron curtain" will block delegates from developing solutions to advance human rights in the Middle East.

"The war on terrorism has many fronts," said Ms. Bayefsky, "The most prominent front is the war of ideas."

Limited free speech and prohibition of the term "Islamophobia" are part of the "war of ideas," panelists said.

According to statistics presented at the forum, U.S. taxpayers will fund 22 percent of conference.

Not all of the panelists agreed that "Islamophobia" was exaggerated.

"As a Muslim, I can personally attest that 'Islamophobia' is not a myth," said Mr. Nazer, a Muslim who has discussed Islam with people unaware of his religious association. He said, "A lot of people have misconceptions that they think are fact."

-- Rob Gutierrez, intern, The Washington Times