The Pentagon held a briefing Monday in response to a story first aired last week by NBC News about military body armor. NBC's report suggested an armored vest called Dragon Skin might provide better protection than the body armor the Army issues to soldiers, called Interceptor.

NBC commissioned an independent limited test in which Dragon Skin outperformed Interceptor under some conditions.

Today, the Army made public its own testing, asserting that Dragon Skin failed its tests and that Interceptor is the best armor available.

Brig. Gen. Mark Brown said Monday: "We value our soldiers very highly, and we do everything we can do to ensure that they have the finest in force protection as they go into the battle."

As NBC reported on Dateline on Sunday, Brown says the Army tested Dragon Skin and it failed miserably. Brown says Dragon Skin failed at room temperature as well as in extreme heat and extreme cold -- environments that can parallel conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An Army briefing paper says, the vest "suffered catastrophic failure... at minus 60 Fahrenheit, and at 120 and 160 degrees." The Army claims the adhesive holding the discs together failed, causing the discs to separate.

Experts who witnessed the NBC test say the contradictory results demonstrate the Army should conduct a new round of independent testing, which the Army has resisted.

Retired four-star Army Gen. Wayne Downing -- an NBC new analyst -- observed the NBC-commissioned tests. He says, "The Interceptor Body Armor did quite well. It's just that Dragon Skin did better. What I take away from this test is it deserves a full, unbiased test by a neutral party. Because I thought it was pretty dog-gone good."

Downing was aware of Army test results at that time and has since been briefed by the Army. He says he remains convinced that the results of the NBC tests in Germany warrant full-scale independent tests.

Philip Coyle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and chief weapons tester for the Pentagon, also observed the NBC tests and has since received a briefing on the Army's test results.

He says, "It's clear to me from the tests that I observed that Dragon Skin has got some real advantages. General Brown has said that they want the best they can get for US soldiers. If that's true, they ought to be evaluating Dragon Skin side by side with Interceptor. That's going to mean side-by-side tests, where they do the same thing to both under the same conditions -- a level playing field for both sets of contractors."

Several Democratic U.S. senators, including Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, have called for independent tests done outside the Army.

"When I say independent, I mean a body that is not invested in the current system. Independent meaning GAO or a third-party that can take a look at the present body-armor system and the Dragon Skin and make a determination as to which is better, and how much better," Webb tells NBC News

You have to picture this: 10 little girls wearing pink and purple tutus, bursting with excitement over the ballet class they're about to have.

You might have thought it was a typical ballet class, if you didn't notice a few things. On one side of the room is a bunch of heaped metal -- walkers, crutches and poles. On the other side are student volunteers, ready to carry the girls over to the dance mats.

This ballet class was for little girls who have cerebral palsy or other debilitating conditions. The woman I was there to interview was one of those people you know is special from the outset -- Joann Ferrara -- a woman with so much energy I smile just thinking about her.

When I arrived, I already knew Joann was a physical therapist who started a ballet school for children with cerebral palsy. I didn't know why. Turns out, a few years ago, Joann began noticing how excited her patients were when she incorporated ballet moves into their therapy. She began talking to the girls, listening to their excited accounts of watching their older sisters' dance classes. She says that's when it hit her: Why not have a ballet class just for them?

Joann is the focus of our weekly Friday "Making a Difference" series. She's a woman with a mission -- to put smiles on her girls' faces. She knew it wasn't going to be easy. Most of the girls can't move. Some can't talk. But they can all smile -- and from 4:45 to 5:45 p.m. yesterday -- I saw some of the biggest grins I had ever seen.

I know you're going to be touched by Joann. She delights in every step these girls take. And I was especially impressed by what she doesn't say -- that the girls love the ballet experience. The dressing up, the ballet slippers, the Swan Lake music, the magic wands. They love being ordinary girls who get an escape from the grind of multiple doctor visits every day.

A special shout out to the group of teens who come every week to help the ballerinas. They play such a vital role in the class. They bend the girls' bodies so they can make pirouettes. They collapse their tiny bodies so the girls can take bows. They pick them up so the girls can jump. And the little girls clearly adore them.

One thing I don't mention in the story tonight: Joann's true dream is to start a non-profit organization so she can add classes and include more children. If you want to help Joann, she says, she'd love to hear from you. Here's her e-mail: joannrpt@aol.com.

Most importantly, I hope you enjoy the story tonight as much as I enjoyed watching yesterday's class. I guarantee, you've never seen ballerinas like these.

As I write this, I'm sitting in a booth overlooking the United Nations General Assembly. Speaker after speaker takes to the podium. A few people in the audience have earphones on but don't look too interested in what the speakers have to say.

Judging from the scene in front of me, you would think it's business as usual. But today, it most certainly is not. A nation - a world - awaits word from the Security Council, meeting just a floor below where I am.

Every 30 minutes or so, Security Council members come out from their meeting and make a few remarks at the podium. For the last six or so hours, we have heard a lot of similar language coming from the delegates - phrases like "we must react firmly" - "swift and immediate action" - "grave situation in North Korea." Missing from all these remarks - the details being discussed. The sanctions themselves. What will be different this time around, hours after North Korea claims they successfully conducted a nuclear test.

Even once the proposed sanctions are known (and as I write this blog, I see more details are emerging), I'm particularly interested in China's reaction. Many analysts (including our Andrea Mitchell) have noted China's conflicting interests. Certainly, having a nuclear neighbor is a threat. But with China providing much of North Korea's food and fuel, they also have an interest not to impose sanctions that would destabilize North Korea. The threat - an influx of North Korean refugees into China - something the country wants to avoid.

Another interesting key point - to what extent will Ambassador John Bolton (and for that matter, Christopher Hill - U.S. envoy to the six-party talks) back up their strong words with tough action. Bolton has said, not too long ago, that if North Korea decides to carry out nuclear tests, "it will be a very different world a day after the test." Just how different will our world be?

We watch and wait.

A number of viewers have asked why last night's investigative story on the use of corporate jets by members of Congress featured 6 Republicans and only one Democrat.

Our story was driven strictly by the numbers. We looked at an equal number of high-ranking Democrats and Republicans now in Congress and counted the number of flights taken on corporate jets over the last 5 years.  What we found is that, among current members, the top fliers were mostly Republicans. The top three we mentioned had almost 100 flights or more. Sen. Harry Reid, the top Democrat in our survey, had 37 flights.  Here are the numbers:

(1) Sen. Trent Lott = 114  flights
(2) Rep. Roy Blunt = 104 flights
(3) Rep. Oxley = 94 flights
(4) Rep. Tom DeLay = 65 flights
(5) Sen. George Allen = 39 flights
(6) Sen. Harry Reid = 37 flights
(7) Sen. Bill Frist = 34 flights

We derived these figures by checking filings by individual Senate/House members and leadership PAC records. We culled these records from the Federal Election Commission. However, because members of Congress are allowed to report so few details, the FEC records are vague and it is difficult to decipher whether flights are on corporate jets (at reduced rates) or on regular charter flights. To ensure accuracy, we provided each individual congressional office with our list of flights to make sure that they were precise.

Why are more Republicans using private jets? One reason may be that they have controlled Congress for 12 years. If Democrats had controlled Congress, I suspect we would see much higher numbers for many key Democrats than we found this time.  Also, some Democrats who heavily used corporate jets--such as Sen. John Edwards--are no longer in Congress.

While Brian and much of the Nightly News team were in Torino, I was vacationing in Tucson, Ariz., riding horses on a ranch and making friends from all across America who had a lot of questions about the news.

My favorite question was from a young oil executive from Oklahoma. Over drinks at the nightly happy hour, he wanted to know: "is this bird flu thing for real?" We were joined by another friend, an emergency room doctor from Minnesota, and both the doctor and I quickly insisted that, of course, it was: my friend invoked the CDC statistics he receives each week, while I mentioned our own reporting, and journalist friends who have traveled to Romania and Italy to cover the story.  (All this transpired before this weekend's news, where infected ducks and turkeys marked the arrival of the flu in France.)

But heading back to New York, I wondered: did the doctor and I properly answer the question? Our friend wasn't asking whether the news media was making the story up, but whether avian flu, after all the media attention, really posed a health threat to him, to us here in the states.

His question reminded me that we face a constant challenge in journalism: How to report far-away stories when we have a natural tendency to care the most about what happens –- or we believe might happen -— to us. I vividly remember watching the Robert Altman movie "Short Cuts" shortly after my son was born and sobbing during a vignette about a couple whose son is hit by a car on his way to school, fully aware that I was personalizing a fictitious story. Many people experience news the same way, and who can blame them? It's why we start a lot of reports about abstract policy issues with real people and their real problems. And it may explain why the avian flu, because it thankfully hasn't hit our shores, or developed the deadly ability to jump species, doesn't register as a "real" story with all of our viewers.

One of my favorite guilty pleasures in recent weeks has been to catch up on old episodes of a classic television series. It's the cable show, currently on hiatus, about a New Jersey-based businessman and father struggling to balance work and family issues, including periodic downsizing on both fronts.  While I love the opening sequence, with its evocative shots of the New Jersey Turnpike, that beleaguered road of my beloved home state, I'm also fascinated by its exuberant, sometimes funny, often offputting use of obscenities. As you'll see below, I am no fan of cussing, but on that show, those words sound right at home. 

My choice of "The Sopranos" for leisure viewing might surprise my colleagues. That's because of this part of my job: I look at a script, or watch a news report before it airs, and encounter some salty language. Producers look to me, expectantly, for a verdict. Does it have a place in the broadcast? Often, the answer is no. And I am not persuaded by the argument that the language under consideration is more familiar than ever to viewers of entertainment programs, even those on broadcast television. For many reasons – including that news should be family programming – we keep the use of mature language to a minimum. 

But there are times when coarser language will make the cut. Here's a recent example: Chip Reid's report last month (video link) on a pitched congressional debate about tax cuts featured a Congressman who said priorities on the other side of the aisle were "screwed up." The language still gives me pause, but it illustrated what we described as a "furious" debate. The quotation stayed.
   
Is there deterioration in Congressional decorum? Mike Viqueira, a Capitol Hill producer for NBC News, takes up the issue here. Could it be due to cruder language elsewhere in our culture? If it is, let me remind those in the public sphere that just like my surreptitious "Sopranos" viewing – when the kids are out of earshot – there's a time and a place for almost everything.

We have learned an instructive lesson on the perils of instant Internet posting. We wanted to share with you what happened, what errors we made and what we have learned.

In an effort to give viewers and readers a richer experience, we are all encouraged to provide more content online -- background, transcripts of interviews, documents we use in reporting -- than typically appears in our television reports on NBC Nightly News or elsewhere on the network.

As part of a Nightly News report on domestic eavesdropping and national security Tuesday, January 3, Andrea Mitchell interviewed James Risen of the New York Times who broke the story of domestic spying and whose book on the subject came out that day.  In the course of a long taped interview for the Nightly report, Andrea asked Risen a question about something that had been picked up by one of our producers, namely that some reporters, including CNN's Christiane Amanpour, may have been spied upon by the National Security Agency. Risen told her he had not heard that.  (Intelligence officials have since told NBC News that Ms. Amanpour was not specifically targeted for eavesdropping.) 

Nightly News obviously did not report on this because it was an unsubstantiated tip, though we continued to follow other leads on the NSA story. Unfortunately, without Andrea's approval, the entire transcript was posted on the web, including the brief exchange about Ms. Amanpour. When questions started surfacing in the blogosphere, it became clear that the publication of the transcript had inadvertently called attention to an allegation that had not been verified. We quickly decided to edit out that portion of the Risen transcript while we continued to check out the story. It's no surprise that readers were curious if not suspicious about the whole thing. 

It's important to point out that Andrea was doing exactly what good reporters do, namely, follow leads including those that go nowhere and then report only verified information.  We never intended to share unsubstantiated material with the public.

As for the publication of her transcript, we've learned an important lesson. The Internet audience wants to know more than just the filtered facts. We, too, see the importance of giving additional information, longer interviews, and greater context than what we can fit in limited airtime.
This incident shows that sometimes that goal collides with our professional responsibility to pursue the truth. We're not trying to hide anything; but when we keep hearsay off the air and off the web, we feel we are simply doing our jobs. 

I've been reading the robust and passionate responses to Brian's post on the false hope that spread from the West Virginia church to the news media and then to viewers and readers around the world. 

The Web site of the Poynter Institute, a school for working and future journalists, has a thoughtful analysis of how the miners' story was reported, then amended. Read it here. The focus is on newspapers, but the article is useful reading for all of us who care about how the press grapples with breaking news, competitive pressures and mistakes.

Following Brian's interview with President Bush, many of you asked whether any of his questions were submitted in advance -- and Brian told you at the end of this blog post that, of course, they were not. That question took me by surprise, probably because of how well I know NBC News policy, which does not allow any interview subject, presidential or otherwise, to receive questions in advance. But it seems the blogosphere has wondered about journalists pre-clearing questions with the White House before, at least as far back as April 2004, when the WashingtonPost.com tried to dispel similar questions about the daily press briefing in this Live Chat. (Look for the second question, from a reader in Rochester, N.Y.) 

Are these suspicions evidence of a lack of trust in journalism, government, or both? I don't know, but I hope the truth about the way we work will resolve them, once and for all.

Guests at last night's crowded cocktail party were abuzz: would Judith Miller keep her commitment and make a public appearance, hours after the announcement of her retirement from The New York Times? The answer was yes, and I had a bird's-eye view. 

If you are reading this, chances are you are familiar with at least some of the elements of Miller's involvement in the CIA leak investigation. If not, here's the NYT's recap, published today. While some observers are calling for additional investigation into exactly what happened at the Times, I sensed a closing of a chapter, at least at last night's event, which was an annual dinner in New York for an organization of media lawyers in New York.  Ms. Miller seemed cheerful and relaxed enough, and, though asked, predictably offered no new insight into the reasons for her departure. Then the panel, set months ago to discuss current issues related to reporters' privilege, got to the work at hand.

The news was mixed. On the one hand, Time's Matt Cooper said that his magazine has continued to secure information, and break stories, thanks to confidential sources. And Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., discussed his sponsorship of a shield law that would offer reporters protections in federal court that are already available in many states. On the other hand, the CIA's request this week for an investigation of the source of a Washington Post article about secret prisons, and last week's court decision in an ongoing attempt to secure reporter testimony in a civil case raise the specter of new battles between courts and the media.

These developments, and the lawyers working on them, are not likely to attract Miller-level attention anytime soon. But everyone interested in serious journalism should continue to pay attention to their work, which ultimately serves to give all of us, citizens of a democracy, the information we need to make important decisions.

Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of returning to my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, to participate in a panel discussion about current issues in journalism. Before I reunited with my old reporting buddies, I took in our annual homecoming football game. Sorry, development office:  I loved the band but was disappointed in the game results, as was this writer. But wait, maybe you had a different reaction, and would prefer the recounting of the game offered here.

I'm linking to two articles with predictably different takes on the game to raise one of the themes we tackled at the session, just as we do here and at other serious news organizations: has technology changed what you want from us? Are we heading, as one panelist wondered, toward a "journalism of affirmation," where readers and viewers seek out information that reinforces their point of view?  What might that mean for that serendipitous moment when you pause before grabbing the remote or turning the page, and find that you were wrong, you are interested in the next story, which perhaps even changed your mind about an issue? And will the Internet change our traditional reporting methods, our job security, even the contribution news makes to our society?

I'm excited by the promise of the Internet for delivering news (and chances are, if you are reading this, I'm preaching to the converted). It's thrilling to develop new opportunities to tell stories and reach new viewers, who then can so easily reach back to us. (Another panelist, a newspaper reporter, said he gets a volume of feedback from his web writing that he never sees from articles that run in the paper.) And you've been great about writing in with questions and comments about our work here.

But is this a self-sustaining medium? Will news consumers devote time, maybe even money, to the offerings of reputable news organizations on the Web? Tonight, NBC News debuts its Netcast of the full Nightly, so to speak. It's a great opportunity for us to tap into a new audience. Will you be watching?

Last week, Nightly News' investigative unit broke the story of e-mails that revealed a divergence between the warnings of a FEMA deputy stationed at the Superdome during Katrina, and the responses he got from the inner circle of former director Michael Brown. The testimony of the FEMA insider, Marty Bahamonde, was a focal point of Senate hearings the next day. His criticism of FEMA is especially significant because of his reputation: he is highly praised by both Brown and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

The report prompted a skeptical response from one viewer, who wrote:

"… Initially, I thought it was a terrific report. However, I think you owe it to your viewers to give some indication as to who tipped off your reporter and who provided you with the e-mails. If someone in Washington is continuing to make Michael Brown the scapegoat for the disaster in New Orleans in order to protect others, you missed the real story; namely, who is doing the leaking and whom are they trying to protect?"

His first point is a topical one. We are adherents of journalism's transparency movement (the silver lining in the storm over confidential sources), and we try, when appropriate, to share details about how we got the stories we report to you. (Obviously, it's not always possible to identify sources.) Here, we missed a chance to share some background information. NBC News obtained the e-mails from a FEMA critic. 

As for the viewer's second point – whether these e-mails were made available to make Brown a "scapegoat" – it's speculative. Our investigative team says there's no evidence that politics were at work here, especially given the bipartisan nature of the Senate hearings (chaired by a Republican) and Bahamonde's stature as a respected source.  (For a sense of how his testimony was received, see this Washington Post story.) To me, the skepticism expressed by this viewer is a (not unwelcome) sign of the journalism times. I hope he understands that we take his concerns to heart, and think carefully about our sources, their agendas (if any) and what constitutes everything you need to know about the information we report.