Sen. George Allen blurts out an offensive word. Sen. Conrad Burns seems to nod off during a hearing. A Florida House candidate repeats a racial stereotype. There was a time when candidates could get away with those gaffes on the campaign trail if they took place away from a phalanx of news cameras. But in this new era of Internet video, the “boys on the bus” — the clique of journalists Timothy Crouse wrote about covering the campaign back in the 1970s — have company. Make room for the campaign aide with a digital video camera.

Usually working for the rival’s operation, these camera-toting operatives quickly post any potentially embarrassing videos to YouTube.com, the popular Internet video site. The clips are ready-made campaign news for mainstream journalists — no need to seek out people who were at the event to confirm the offending action. As the sportscasters like to say, let’s go to the videotape.

If campaign 2004 was the year of the blogs, when online political journals sometimes broke news about political foibles, campaign 2006 is shaping up to be the year of YouTube. The San Mateo, Calif.-based company’s site has become the Web’s most popular video channel; fans have posted 100 million clips and upload more than 65,000 videos daily. Although many of those are home movies (and about as interesting), or feature sports clips or music videos, this season politics has entered the spotlight. And it’s already had an impact on the news coverage of some campaigns.

“YouTube is the TV network for the blogosphere. What blogs did for the written word, YouTube is doing for visual media,” said Matthew Felling, of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonpartisan research center that studies the news.

In August, Allen, a 2008 presidential hopeful long considered a shoo-in for re-election this fall, was stumping in rural Virginia with little mainstream media in tow. But in the crowd was a campaign worker for Democratic challenger Jim Webb. And he was videotaping Allen’s speech. Allen pointed out the staffer, S.R. Sidarth, who hails from Virginia but is of Indian descent, called him “Macaca” and added, “Welcome to America.”

For Allen, it was welcome to controversy, YouTube style.

Macaca (sometimes written macaque) refers to a species of monkey and in some parts is considered a racial slur. The Allen clip was posted to YouTube, the link was e-mailed around and within days the incident was in newspapers and on television nationwide. Allen decided to dip into his campaign coffers and buy more TV ad spots to make up for the hit his image took.

Other candidates also have been YouTubed this season. Burns was filmed (by a Democratic staffer back in Montana) checking his watch and then seeming to nod off in a farm-bill hearing. Since it was posted to YouTube, the clip has drawn more than 73,000 viewers and prompted people to leave sometimes nasty comments.

Before the Connecticut Democratic primary, a clip of President Bush appearing to kiss Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman at last year’s State of the Union address — something many viewers might have missed — was up on YouTube. Lieberman, of course, lost the primary to Ned Lamont, whose main criticism of the incumbent was his support of Bush’s conduct of the Iraq War. YouTube also has become the dumping ground for every TV ad a candidate tapes. After all, it’s free. And some elected officials, among them House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, post clips from the House floor so often to YouTube that she has her own channel, NancyPelosi.

Every new campaign season brings another technological innovation. Since the advent of the Internet and wireless technology, we’ve seen the concept of media altered by the online posting of ads, the online raising of funds, blogging and Podcasting.

But what’s creating the most chatter lately is the “gotcha” clips on YouTube. Pictures — especially moving ones — speak louder than several columns of news print. Democrats have been urging campaigns to make use of the newest medium. “It’s an effective device for getting unfiltered information to voters as quickly as possible,” said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Republicans have even outed one of their own. RedState.com featured a clip of Florida GOP congressional candidate Tramm Hudson saying: “I understand that blacks are not the greatest swimmers or may not even know how to swim.” The managing editor of RedState, Erick Erickson, put the impact this way: “His words will, justifiably, mostly likely destroy his campaign and sink his chances of victory.”

YouTubing can add value to campaign coverage if it helps expose two-talking politicians. But it can also cheapen the media’s coverage if it substitutes gaffes, misstatements and unflattering images for real information. It depends on what kind of “reality” programming Americans can best use to make intelligent choices: “Candid Camera” or “Meet the Press.”

Contributing editor Elizabeth Wasserman is a Washington freelance writer. She can be reached at ewasserman@cq.com.