Oh, so now it is the fault of the new media that Bush won?  Well good.  This sour grapes, envious report from England nicely analyzes another element of Bush's successful campaign while highlighting the importance of the new media in still yet another aspect of our culture. 
Will the mainstream media adapt? Will anyone care?

Ethel C. Fenig  11 9 04

Thomas Lifson adds:

The Guardian story is unintentionally funny:

Republican supporters were far, far better at fighting dirty. Conservative mega—sites such as Freerepublic.com galvanised their hundreds of thousands of visitors into an army of amateur attack dogs — ready to yap and snap the moment a foolish journalist wrote anything bad about Bush. Woe betide any TV reporter who didn't check his facts properly before claiming that George W didn't finish his national guard service. And pity any liberal British newspaper that launched an online campaign to convince the voters of a small county in Ohio of the merits of a Kerry administration. The mass yapping and snapping worked like a charm — making even the most fearless journalists think twice before they questioned Bush's suitability for a second term.

So fact checking and mockery are "fighting dirty." At last we find out the secrets of Guardian standards of journalism.