Campaign Remedies: Battle of the Bulge

By: But no discussion of the de- bates is complete without asking, "what was that thing?" The mysterious bulge on Bush's back during all three debates had about as much impact on voters' lives as the color tie he wore. Still, the mystery ? and the White House's reluctance to adequately explain it ? made it a story that still has not died. So should newspapers be chastised for drawing attention to the issue, or are they to blame for not digging into it enough?

"I think we exercised good restraint," the Chicago Tribune's Silva says. "There were clearly doctored photographs going around, but we looked into it." Balz of the Washington Post also gave it little attention, but understood why some played it up. "I think it will live on well after the campaign," he says. "Some people thought it was a real issue."

Apparently Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times didn't. His response: "Campaign coverage overdoes everything."

For the New York Times' Nagourney, however, the story is likely not over. "I would not be surprised if coverage of it kept up," he says. "Who knows? It may end up being something in six months." But did the press fail in finding out what the object was? "It is perplexing," notes Page. "But what is the alternative? It's not like there is congressional oversight of this."