Instapundit links approvingly to a pro-Bush blogger who blogged:

Why did Pentagon officials lie? Their distortions gained so little in the short-term and undercut the war efforts in the long-term. Heads should roll.

which is about the same as Powerline's John Hinderaker conceding that:

There is no question that the initial misreporting of the circumstances of Tillman's death was stupid and improper.

but in fairness to Instapundit and his link buddy, their conclusion that "Heads should roll" at the Pentagon is reality-based, while Powerline's surreal conclusion is that conducting an investigation is the greatest sin of all.

When they were selected as the bloggers of the year by Time Magazine, in 2004, the Powerline guys said, "We try to provide something that brings people closer to reality," but their alleged love for reality was over-rated.

Glenn writes

Over and over and over, our most influential American media outlets publish false stories based on government "sources" who purposely lie to them, and they never report on the real story -- who are the government sources lying to the American public while hiding behind shields of anonymity granted to them, and maintained by, our nation's "journalists"?

Reporters aren't going to revoke a grant of anonymity, even when the grant was a mistake. To prevent future mistakes, reporters should be trained to grant anonymity much less, and to follow guidelines like McClatchy's:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/world/16275282.htm

Posted on Tue, Dec. 19, 2006
McClatchy Washington Bureau's policy on using anonymous sources

McClatchy Newspapers

Every day, our readers rely on us to help them connect events in Washington and around the world to their lives. This privilege rests on our accuracy and our honesty - in short, on our credibility. That demands that we reveal as much as we possibly can about our sources of information, granting anonymity grudgingly and only when there is no alternative means to obtain essential information . . .

. . . Anonymity should not be assumed or granted automatically. It should be the result of vigorous negotiation with the source. If the source insists on confidentiality, reporters should review the information and the quotes with the source at the end of the interview and seek to get as much as possible on the record.

Supervising editors should be made aware as soon as possible that a story relies on unnamed sources. The highest-ranking editor in the bureau must approve the use of such information.

We must identify sources as fully as possible. A source’s partisan, institutional or policy allegiance should be made clear. The article should explain the reasons for granting anonymity, the motives of the source and a description of why the source is considered authoritative (e.g., an “administration officials who has participated in the discussions and disagrees with the policy” or “a senior aide to a Republican lawmaker at odds with his party leadership.”)

Confidential sources must have direct knowledge of the information . . .

. . . Spokesmen for agencies, organizations, political groups or for individuals should not be granted anonymity if they are speaking for their employers. The only exception would be if the spokesman were providing information that, if his identity were known, would imperil his livelihood or physical well-being or that of his boss.

- - McClatchy Newspapers