US: A bitter row has erupted between liberal weekly The New Republic and the Daily Kos, America's most popular Democratic political blog, over the power of their owners and relationships with top politicians.
The feud, which has involved accusations of corruption, cronyism and censorship, highlights competing views of progressive politics and reflects widespread mistrust and resentment between new and old media.
The New Republic, a weekly associated with moderate Democrats that supports a tough foreign and defence policy, has long been a target of scorn at the Daily Kos, which is generally opposed to the Iraq war and usually backs more liberal Democrats.
The magazine seized on claims last week that Jerome Armstrong, co-author and former business partner of Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, charged consultancy fees to political candidates in return for favourable coverage on liberal blogs.
Former Virginia governor Mark Warner, a right-wing Democrat who gave key political jobs to Republicans, is a favourite on the Daily Kos and is also one of Mr Armstrong's clients. Mr Moulitsas abruptly shifted support from Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett in the Democratic Senate primary in Ohio to Sherrod Brown, another of Mr Armstrong's clients.
"Are Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas engaged in a pay-for-play scheme in which politicians who hire Armstrong as a consultant get the support of Kos?" asked the New Republic on its website.
The magazine then published a leaked copy of an e-mail Mr Moulitsas sent to dozens of liberal bloggers asking them to "ignore this for now" and not write anything about the allegations.
Mr Moulitsas reacted furiously to the leak, accusing the New Republic of becoming "just another cog in the vast right-wing conspiracy" and urging readers to stop buying it.
"It is now beyond clear that the dying New Republic is mortally wounded and cornered, desperate for relevance. It has lost half its circulation since the blogs arrived on the scene and they no longer (thank heavens!) have a monopoly on progressive punditry. We have hit their bottom line, we are hitting their patron saint hard (Joe Lieberman) and this is how they respond. By going after the entire movement," he wrote. Mr Moulitsas said the allegations were without foundation, pointing out that he had published his sources of income and that none came from candidates he endorsed.
This did not prevent New York Times conservative commentator David Brooks from describing Mr Moulitsas as the "moral doppelganger" of Republican Tom De Lay, who intertwined the worlds of politics and lobbying.
"The truth is that the new boss is little different from the old boss - only smaller. In just a few short years he has achieved a level of self-importance it took those in the pre-blog political class decades to acquire. He has challenged his enemy and become it," Mr Brooks wrote.