The closing sentence Ash used should be "more and more stupid", not "stupider and stupider". What dictionary do these people use?

OK, so Truthout screwed up - maybe. Or maybe they just didn't wait long enough to report the story, or whatever the hell happened. Talk about a non-issue! The last thing salon readers, or truthout readers, are interested in is a pissing match between the two organizations. This is a classic bullshit competitiveness-driven press dustup that means little to anyone other than the reporters involved. Readers want to know whether Rove will be indicted or not, not who jumped the gun on a story - that's way more insiderish and gossipy than most of us have time or patience for. Get back to reporting and draw in the fangs.

It's conceivable that what they're saying is true at this point. It's conceivable, perhaps, that the indictment was made and then used as leverage by Fitzgerald and he got Rove to cooperate, and that's something best kept secret while Rove cooperated, perhaps without the knowledge of Bush and Cheney.

After all, wasn't some of the evidence pointing towards Cheney lately?

At some point, assuming any of this sort of thing is the case, it can be argued that sometimes, reporting confidential things can be against the public interest. Most of the media nowadays does seem to mostly operate on an 'if they can learn it, they should report it' basis.

The wrath of readers who find out a story was held back is often high; however, would holding back a story to help a better case against Cheney get developed be wrong? Was the reporter who received the same leak of Plame's identity as Novak, but chose not to print the story, wrong while Novak did the right thing by exposing her?

The one question I'd have now for Truthout, and I don't see this one asked yet, is when will they decide that their sources betrayed them and say who those sources were? I saw a report that they've agreed to do that, but not when. Even if it's two weeks or two months, it'd be good to know that.

I'm disheartened to see a news source - Truthout, in this case - resorting to the same sorts of arguments made by the Bush administration when they're called out.

"We did something wrong, but here's an apology for something tangential to our actual transgression."

"We're not wrong, but we won't tell you why we're right."

"Refrain from asking the obvious, intelligent and well-informed decisions that I should be addressing, if I wanted to admit the truth about those things, I would have done so by now."

I find this disappointing in the extreme, and I certainly hope that they're called out on it (not the report, which has already attracted enough attention, but the faux 'apology' and its 'Bushiness') by someone with a bit more clout than me.

This half-assed apology isn't good enough. They reported that Karl Rove was indicted a week ago yesterday that it would be announced by yesterday by even the most charitable interpretation of their story. Jason Leopold said he'd burn his sources if they were lying, which it now seems like they were. He should expose them if he wants to retain any credibility; if he doesn't, Truthout should fire him.

After today, we expect "Truth Out" to change its name to "Lies Out." The rush to steal other people's work has finally cost them their undeserved reputation for 'breaking news.' The only thing they 'break' is copyright law, every time they reproduce a story on their site. --Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., Founder and Chair, Citizens For Legitimate Government (www.legitgov.org)

i find it very disturbing that they would self censor if they knew for a fact that Rove was being indicted. isn't that what reporting is for? to break a story!

Slauck, I don't see them self-censoring.

They're standing by the claim that they have many sources, including three 'network news level' off the record, verifying their story, and they've reported the story; they did not retract it.

There seem to be about three main possibilities:

- The story is accurate, and some reason - possibly Rove cooperating - is keeping the indictment unannounced.

- They were lied to and at some point will reveal the sources who misled them.

- They're making it up.

(Or some combination of them).

The last option seems unlikely, IMO, but in the best case they missed some of the story, leaving them with a story that led to unexpected delays in the indictment being announced. However, the 'three network sources have the story but are ordered not to report it by their bosses' raises some red flags for me.

Maybe the networks are not wanting to endure the 60 Minutes memo treatment, but it sounds fishy.

The main question I have is in what time frame they'll name the sources.

If they do indeed have sources that are able to feed them information regarding the inner workings of the investigation, why haven't those sources updated them on whatever may have transpired since the original story? Multiple sources knew of an indictment being handed down, but now they know nothing?

Back in the day when Leopold came under attack for a story (here in Salon) on Enron that was based (supposedly) on insider emails originating from Enron's own email servers, I offered to help Leopold prove his case through examination of the email headers that should have been kept as part of the originals. Mr. Leopold did not have those headers which in turn meant that the emails that formed a large portion of the foundation for his story could not be traced or verified. I have been very skeptical when reading his reporting since that time.

I am sure Mr. Leopold means well and everything he reports may ultimately prove to be true. None the less, questions remain.