Dan D:

I think it would be fair to say TPM did do significant original reporting. They have 2 or 3 full time blogger-reporters, and Josh himself is a professional reporter.

I think it's just a definition issue, and I certainly didn't mean to minimize or disparage the work TPM did on this story in any way. If anything, I think what they did is more important and at a higher level than what, in normal (though not all) circumstances I mean by "original reporting."

To me, "original reporting" means gathering and disseminating the basic facts of a story - who did what, when, where, etc. TPM isn't who, for instance, found out that these U.S. attorneys were fired, nor did they obtain the e-mails between the DOJ and the White House, nor have they really been the first to disclose the basic facts of the story. Those were done by various local reporters and some national media outlets. That, to me, is "original reporting."

What TPM did is looked at all of the scattered, separated facts and discovered how they go together and what their meaning and significance was. What they did was more analytical than "original reporting." As I said, I think that analytical work of that type is at least as important as, and probably more important than, the nuts and bolts of original reporting, and without them, perhaps this story would have died.

And I think that's the principal role of bloggers -- to take the facts which national media outlets gather and analyze them and say what they mean. Ultimately, it's just semantics.

For instance, I don't consider the post I wrote this morning -- where I found those quotes from Clinton critics and other DOJ documents -- to be "original reporting" because what I really did was just find and piece together information that was already out there (same with the story I did last January on the DeWine amendment and the administration's response). Journalists are basically failing to put together the available facts and that is the role bloggers primarilly play.

But while I would love to pile more on the Bush administration, this practice and attitude isn’t solely attributable to the past 6 years - this has been SOP for as far back as I know, and was how things were (and how the agencies felt) even when I was at DOJ in the early ‘90s.

I didn't say it was solely attributable to the past 6 years. Excessive power vested in federal law enforcement -- in particular, but not only, the DEA and ATF -- has been a problem for decades.

Still, there is an added irony to the refusal to tape record from an administration which loves surveillance more than any other. Also, it is true that recording has become much cheaper and more technologically feasiable than it was in, say, 1983 or even 1993, which renders the logistics far easier.

But where in the postings is it shown that they know their conduct is improper? They seem, in fact, to be arguing the opposite: that THEY think it proper (because it's legal), but that WE (juries, the public) might still be upset by it.

Just because someone says in a written document that what they are doing is proper does not mean (a) that it is proper or (b) that they think it's proper.

If they really thought what they were doing were proper, they would not go to such lengths to conceal it, particularly at the cost of risking convictions. As I said, their conduct is interrogations would be an issue with juries whether it's recorded or not. So the only possible reason not to record it is because they want to be able to testify falsely to the jury about what they did without anyone having proof that they are lying.

There is no other reason so vehemently to oppose recording. Obviously, they are not going to say in a written document that they know that what they're doing is improper. That does not, however, preclude someone - based on evidence - from accusing them of trying to conceal knowingly improper behavior. It is not the case - as you seem to assume -- that the only evidence relevant to whether someone knows they are acting improperly is whether they admit or deny doing so.

What strikes me is that the "news" was posted less than an hour before the actual announcement. It seems to me the poster simply wanted to be the one with the scoop rather than the one with actual news. That the source was supposedly "reliable" is of no consequence.

I agree completely. What possible purpose is served by rushing like a little child to tattle about gossip like this when the speech itself is going to take place in 50 minutes. It's just a way of trying to show who is the most well-connected. Even if the report were accurate, the news value is zero.

Unfortunate that Tim Grieve succumbed to just such 'scoop' pressures as described here. CC him on your post.

I just went and read the last few posts in War Room in response to your comment and don't see what you mean. Tim passed on the reports from CNN, MSNBC and The Politico about Edwards' annoucement - many people did that - but he didn't purport to have any exclusive news about it himself.

Great point. You're absolutely right. That is an extremely important effect of all of this, and nobody illustrates it more than Mickey Kaus - that whole treating of our political system as one big substance-free jade gossipy game. And that's exactly how it's reported. I was going to add your comment as an update but it's really it's own separate topic that I'll likely write about tomorrow (and I did write about that before - particularly on the old blog when I wrote about the media's reaction to Russ Feingold's decision not to run for President and why they never understood Feingold).