Absolutely. We have to police ourselves, and it is sometimes the office of a friend to point out a friend's folly- although I'm probably abusing the definition of "friend" in this context.

Bad reporting is bad reporting, regardless of the political perspective of the bad reporter. Let's set the hightest possible standard for liberal reporting on the web, and if someone is getting attention for making outlandish claims, let's make sure that the rest of us recognize it as such, lest the reputation of the community suffer.

Everyone wants media criticism and good ombudsmanship, but sometimes the practice of those ideals involves a sequence of stories like this one, which I haven't exactly enjoyed, either. We need it, though... and by the way, so does Truthout.

TruthOut's misadventures do nothing to bolster the argument that blog writers (the ones to be trusted, at least) are to be taken seriously and, more importantly, that they are the force to keep MSM journalists honest. Keep up the excellent work.

Truthout's prediction of indictment was no different then all predictions of future events.

To trust a news source is silly, you should be skeptical of any reporting that's not verified by multiple disinterested sources.

That it was necessary for Tim Grieve to explain why Salon has written so much abou the truthout story. And I find it amazing how many readers write in just to say "who cares?" Well, if YOU don't care, then why bother writing to say so? Especially when others have already written the same thing? One writer reasoned that the whole Plame case is a big nothing because joe-blow-on-the-street doesn't care, and that Salon should only write stories that cater to the lowest common denominator. If that's your attitude, why don't you just read People or something published by Rupert Murdoch?

Plamegate is interesting to me, and I'll read all that Tim Grieve cares to write about it. So there....

i haven't heard anyone mention this as a possibility, but wouldn't it serve the conservative cause to feed a bogus story in grand detail to leopold & truthout as a means of hobbling the credibility of the liberal blogs?

...maybe Leopold's sources are none other than Fitzgerald and his staff. Think about it.

Leak that Rove's been indicted.

Hear Rove squeak as the White House (Cheney) shit starts to hit his fan.

Wait until Rove agrees after his fifth visit to roll on Cheney.

Announce he won't be charged.

Listen closely to his testimony at Libby's trial in case some perjury pops up.

Go after Big Time.

Thank Truthout and Leopold in a couple months time for playing the game.

At least, that how it all works out in my world.

Progressives should count truth in journalism as one of their values. However, the incredible success of Fox news and the conservative media “echo chamber” in fronting lies to the public and turning them into “common knowledge” (with attendant political success) does put my interests as a Progressive in conflict with my values. Would (n’t) it be great to create our own reality distorting echo chamber with which to win?

What if Salon and everybody else picked up Truthout’s story and magnified it to the point where it cast a further bitter pall in the public mind over the White House?

Some might say (as they say on Fox News) that the White House has enough misfortune that we don’t need to pile on, but from having watched what was done to Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Cleland, et al., our opponents have never given an inch, have never let up.

Many years ago I read a book by Arnold Smookler called “The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution,” the central thesis of which was that once one of the tribes chooses the way of power, the choices of all the other tribes are constrained by that choice. The Conservative movement has reached for and taken a new kind of power to destroy their political opponents and control the debate. Are our choices constrained to either becoming permanent losers or becoming more like our opponents?

Corporatocracy has made conventional "unbiased" new sources impossible to trust and therefore easy to write-off. Many of you will say "yeah yeah we know this" but it's still an important point to make: Blogs are really the only reliable alternative because 1)bloggers never/rarely makes a claim of unbiased reporting 2) frequently sources are cited in blogs 3) blogs are so easily accessible that one can go to any number of them and form their own critique of what is being said in the news. Just as wikipedia is a collective source of knowledge, the blogosphere is a collective source of news. If War Room failed to take issue and report on the credibility of the TruthOut Rove reports and Leopold's suspicious and flagrantly reported facts then War Room is a participant in eroding the use and viability of blogs as a new source.

Technically, has anyone except one of his own lawyers confirmed that Rove is not and will not be indicted? I'm curious because it seems, at least to me, that the mainstream media have simply repeated the one lawyer's assurances without producing a quote from Fitzgerald to back them up.

I completely agree with your reasons and am grateful for the skeptical approach War Room took to Truthout's Rove story. Those of us who find the MSM completely bushist need reliable alternative news sources and not Drudge-like pandering to our hopes and dreams (like seeing Rove and most of the current administration in prison-orange). Your insistence on maintaining journalistic standards is critically important when so much of the press has been cowed or co-opted.

Let's see if you can do it. tim. truthout's "standing down" artiucle today (6/15) from Ash is so disingenuous it would test the resolve of Ssuperman.

As one who despairs of what passes for mainstream journalism these days, I think it may turn out to be crucial for our democracy, and its present vulnerability to fascism by default, that the blogosphere be solidly reliable and credible.

Truthout does a great job of passing on many important stories, most of them authored by mainstream journalists, but when it comes to hard-hitting factual reporting and analysis done by themselves, they are Not Ready For Prime Time. You are exactly right to take them to task to the extent that they can't back up what they reported.

But as someone noted the other day, the prosecutor hasn't spoken yet. When he does, there may be a surprise.