Our question of the week this week is two-part, and inspired by the backlash over questions asked by two ABC newsmen at Wednesday’s debate between the two remaining Democratic candidates for U.S. president, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Here’s what I wrote on OJR’s “editor’s note” yesterday: “It becomes more difficult to make a compelling argument that the decline of the professional news industry harms society when the amateurs come up with better Presidential debate questions than the pros do.”

The WaPo’s Tom Shales unloaded, too, though the NYT’s resident op/ed page conservative, David Brooks, defended the questioning.

What say you? Were the questions appropriate, useful and insightful? Or the type of horse-race, ‘inside baseball,’ gotchas that many bloggers use as justification for attacks on the so-called mainstream media?

Finally, let’s put that final assertion to a test here. Which do you think is a better source for true and accurate coverage of the White House and the race for it?

We’d love to hear your comments on these issues, too.