and if they think this latest kerfuffle is going to draw readers to their site on a permanent basis, I'm afraid they are mistaken, at least in my case.

Have you seen the headline on the current homepage?

"Bush, the Born-Again Peacemaker," a story about something that has not even happened yet for the most part. Sort of like writing up a party before the guests even get in the door.

Nothing wrong with running a short piece to create interest on the results, but this article blathers about opinions of the right and left not even in evidence.

For example: "What they [the left] fear most is the chance that Bush could turn out to be capable of the kind of centrist diplomacy for which his father was known."

Says who???? There is no quote attributed to anyone, not even a reference to an anonymous source. Where did this observation come from?

Is that how lazy reporting has become? Make statements probably built upon previous stories, assuming every reader already knows what they are referring to?

And then we have Joe Klein, the main target here. Pitiful, just pitiful. That quote about not having the time to properly fact check or get anything right was an outright admission that the public is just supposed to trust his insight and shut the f**k up if we don't like it.

The internet has the unique ability to make sources and references easy to find. I don't always agree with Salon's articles, but I do appreciate the many links they provide in their stories, especially Greenwald's.

So yeah, I went to the "Time" site, but I won't be back. And Klein and his ilk are kidding themselves if they think their puppydog devotion to any particular "cause" is giving them a seat at the table. The real powers-that-be probably have nothing but contempt for how cheaply they can be bought.

Back in my day, which was actually not that long ago (Reagan years), one of the most enjoyable pieces a reporter could write was the front-page banner piece utterly destroying a source who had lied.

Back then, we actually used the word "lie" to refer to a lie. People who told lies were referred to as "liars." And the act of telling lies was referred to as "lying."

We destroyed them as sources because they had already destroyed themselves by lying. How could we ever trust them again?

Of course, that was back when writing a false story based on a source's lies was cause for dismissal. Thus, the need to expose and humiliate any lying source to protect and defend your own reporting and as a warning to any source who might beconsidering lying to you in the future.

And that was back when newspapers, magazines and even television stations hired reporters, not stenographers.

Klein and other stenographers don't expose their sources for lying because lying and falseness are irrelevant to stenography.

Lying and falseness only affect journalism - a concept with which Klein and TIME are unfamiliar.

Exposes like this from the new media are what IS changing it. My guess is that "Time" is so utterly ossified with complacent Beltway insiders that they will be unable to adapt and overcome the sea change in communication that is going on right now. They will not learn from this. They will deal with it or not and go on with business as usual. Almost all the corporate media is like "Time". They are not reporters. They are entertainers and script writers. They haven't been reporters for years. They are spewers. Greenwald has commented on guys like Howard Kurtz being not so much malicious as simply conformist, stupid, and lazy. I think that is true. I think those are the traits our corporate media actively seek out in their personalities - yes- personalities - not reporters.

What is it going to take to change it? Simply the drip drip drip of criticism like this from the new media. Glenn is a blogger- but a blogger who is so popular he has hired an assisstant. In another year- he might have two. In three he might have a mini newsroom of his own with reporters in Washington. In 5 years he might have bureaus in foreign capitals or partner blogs. Meanwhile - Time will be employing hacks like Klein whose narritives will be so far away from reality that they will be considered jokes- as many people already do now.

I wouldn't look to the old media reforming itself. I would look to them just withering and dying. I don't think the "New York Times" will have a print circulation of half a million in 10 years and I doubt they will be an online power house.

Hopefully, Klein gets fired for malcompetence in a very high-profile and embarrassing way, and other reporters start thinking a little harder about their career paths.

-- prunes

I hope so.

It just bugs the heck out of me that there are resonable limits on free speech for ordinary citizens --- but if I call myself a "journalist" I'm free from any constraints.

If I call 911 to report that my neighbor has been brutally murdered and that I did it but no such thing happened -- there is serious repercussions for that.

If I falsely report that a co-worker is stealing -- again there are repercussions.

There seems to be a limitless blanck check issued to journalists who can "report" whatever claims they want without fear of any repercussions whatsoever.

Which is odd considering the damage a newpaper can inflict compared to an individual. If I say something untrue the damage will probably not be that great. If a newspaper that reaches millions upon millions of people reports that Saddam has a nuke and will launch it within 10 mins unless we invade immediatlely....well, that seems worse and should have consequences.

It seems like journalists no longer report "facts" but just supposition.

"Dude, I heard from another dude that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster! For real! I think his bodyguard or something helped. That's what I heard, man!"

That is verbatim from a Fox News broadcast from 1990's.

The only way to upgrade from this level of Beavis & Butthead reporting is to change the rules regarding anonymous sources. You can't just go on the air or in print and say, "Dude. I heard from a guy who heard from a guy that Democrats hate America!"

My prediction is that at the end of the day it will be revealed that Joe never had a "source" for his story.