The New Republic has now shifted the terms of the story from that of a boring, inside baseball-bloggy episode of tit-for-tat between Kos and the editors of The New Republic, a storied, almost 100 year old magazine, to one of serious journalistic import. As Steve's headline says, " Why is TNR protecting an dishonest source?" That is what this is all about now: why is TNR protecting a dishonest source? Will readers be able to trust anything TNR prints in the future, if they refuse to out this dishonest source? What's to say someone else won't just concoct something out of thin air, something that is plausible, I might add, and email it to Jason Zengerle, Franklin Foer or Martin Peretz?

More after the jump

As Majikthise writes:

If I had to bet, I'd wager that Zengerle got burned by more than one of his sources on this story. I'd also bet that he didn't do much due diligence to establish the bona fides of the two alleged Townhouse members who supposedly vouched for all three emails, including that non-existent one.

I'm disappointed that Frank Foer is more concerned with circling the wagons against "blogofascism" than he is with preserving TNR's reputation.

Atrios' comments are more colorful than Majikthise's are:

Well, apparently sources can hand over horseshit to willing stenographers and those stenographers don't think there's any need for consequences. This of course lets journalists be simple information launderers for those who wish to libel others.

Which is about right. You would think the New Republic would have learned this lesson by now. After three and a half years of blogging I've learned a few things the hard way. One, if you screw up, be straight up and honest about it the moment it is brought to your attention. Two, don't engage in a cover-up. And three, don't try to CYA because the truth always outs in the end.

If you weren't straight up from the start you're liable to never be forgiven, either. Everyone screws up in life. But three times?

Walter Lippmann's ghost must be weeping.