This seems to be the election of the fact-checker, with the media becoming more emboldened to hold politicians accountable for their misleading statements. But we've also seen some fact-check-creep. Brooke went on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show to discuss what exactly a "fact" is, and why some organizations feel pressure to label traditional news analysis fact-checking. Take a listen below, and listen to the OTM segment on fact-checking here.

You've probably seen this by now -- the latest Romney attack ad on Newt Gingrich that features neither Gingrich or Romney (or at least not until the disclaimer at the end). Instead, it's all Tom Brokaw, from a 1997 NBC Nightly News segment.

NBC has now asked that Romney pull the video, with Brokaw adding that he feels "extremely uncomfortable" with the use of his likeness. On today's Brian Lehrer Show, ABC chief White House correspondent Jake Tapper weighed in on the controversy:

Here's the full Tapper response from today's Brian Lehrer Show:

What do you think? Fair use on the part of the Romney campaign? Over the line? Let us know in the comments!

A few weeks ago, I pitched Bob and Brooke on my idea for an iPhone app that gives you ideas for iPhone apps - plus some of the ideas that would be in my app. (They were skeptical.) I then asked listeners to send along their own great ideas for apps by emailing me.

Lots of you did, here are some highlights. If you have more, email me at ideasfortheideasforanappapp@gmail.com or Tweet to @jodyavirgan.

Smartphone apps are big business, and increasingly complicated to develop. WNYC producer Jody Avirgan talks with Rekha Murthy of PRX and Lisa Bettany of Camera+ about what it takes to get one made -- and pitches his idea for an app to Bob and Brooke.

After the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the US was split about whether to release images of his body. With Moammar Gadhafi we had no such decision to make - dozens of videos and pictures instantly found their way around the world. Once again, we're in a discussion about how these images help, hurt, repulse, enshrine or dehumanize their subject. But this is not a new conversation.

For some reason, I've been thinking a lot about Jesse James this past week. Something in the images of Gadhafi remind me of the pictures that circulated of James after he was killed by Robert Ford in 1882: the angle of repose, the beard, the crowd.

And the way we relive the death of Gadhafi on YouTube every time we watch one of those videos -- that reminds me of how Ford relived his assassination of James night after night on stage.

Moammar Gadhafi is dead, and there are pictures to prove it. Gruesome video and photographs of the Libyan dictator’s body being dragged through the streets have emerged and spread like wildfire online and on cable news.

As you’ll recall, in the aftermath of the death of Osama bin Laden there was heated conversation in this country and elsewhere about whether the photographs of his body should be made public. This show covered that topic on May 6th with Paul Waldman of The American Prospect and Phillip Gourevitch of The New Yorker. Full audio is above, it's worth another listen, and here's the transcript.

Waldman supported the release of the Bin Laden photograph:

While Gourevitch opposed it:

To be clear, the circumstances around the Gadhafi death and photos are quite different. We don't know if Gadhafi was captured before he was killed (some of the videos floating around suggest he was). The White House is not controlling the distribution of these pictures. And this is, ultimately, Libya's moment, not ours. That said, the contrast gives us a chance to reflect on how we felt about the bin Laden photographs. Have you changed your opinion about whether these types of photographs should reach the light of day?

We've reached out to Waldman and Gourevitch for follow-up comments, but for now feel free to start posting your reactions.

UPDATE: Paul Waldman writes us:

This is a very different situation from the Bin Laden question. First, in that instance there were very few pictures of Bin Laden, and so an image of his end would be all the more important. Second, any photograph the U.S. government released would have been carefully composed to represent the American victory over him. In Gadhafi's case, the images are from cell phones -- they're much more spontaneous, chaotic, and violent. They don't display the considered decisions of a government, but the actions of a mob (no matter how justified). If the new Libyan government has difficulty making an orderly transition to a new system, these images could come to have symbolic meaning, representing something not about Gadhafi but about what replaced him, the chaos and violence of the transition. I suspect that in the end, that will determine how much persistence these images have. The more successful and stable the Libyan government is, the less important these violent images will be over the long term.

[[Warning: after the jump we've included a video that shows Gadhafi's bloody body.]]

Here's a little-known (at least here in the US) tidbit that's re-emerged in the News of the World scandal. British singer Billy Bragg has weighed in on the scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch's media empire with his new song "Never Buy The Sun."

The song is a broad critique of British media practices ("someone's hiding in the bushes/ with a telephoto lens") but one line of the refrain requires a bit of historical context. Bragg sings "The Scousers never buy The Sun."

The who? Why do they never buy The Sun?