Marc Ash of Truthout put up this blog post recently defending the reporting of Jason Leopold. Leopold has written two stories for Truthout recently, with the marquee assertion that Karl Rove has been the recipient of a "target letter". This would mean that Fitzgerald is considering indicting Rove, and that the investigation is moving into high gear.

The, not unusually, combative stance from Truthout comes on the heels of questions about Leopold's reporting, and the fear of a "bear trap" rumor being planted to "rat fuck" the liberal and internet press. The fear is that this is a rumor being put forward by those in the right wing, in order to discredit political enemies.

Leopold's own past, with respect to Enron and other reporting, is the basis for many of these questions - but then, Leopold is forthcoming about his past, and his reasons for changing direction. Ash himself has stated unequivocally that everything in Leopold's articles has been checked "with a fine tooth comb" and that there are confirming sources. In short, Truthout is standing 100% behind Leopold's reporting here, and 100% behind the story.

Having written for Truthout in the past, and perhaps may in the future, my position was different - I was not doing investigative reporting, and used few sources not in the public record - though I often went to experts to confirm particular interpretations of data. Investigative reporting of the kind that Leopold is engaging is a different kettle of fish from economic commentary, because, generally, the economy doesn't care what a few people think anonymously. In a global economy with trillions of domestic product, what a minor official thinks isn't going to slow down reaching equilibrium. Speculators may care whether the Fed raises rates this month or next, but not the end point of economic cycles.

The post from Ash exposes a fault line in the left side of the blogging and internet reporting world, one of many it should be added. In part this faultline is simple rivalry between news outlets - I don't think it is any secret that Raw Story and Truthout compete for readers and attention. In part it is concerns about Leopold personally - he's been accused of boorish behavior in the recent past. But in larger part this is rooted in a fear of media manipulation - in 2002, no one believed a stream of stories from the internet left that the march to Iraq was inevitable, and being driven by pre-determined policy. The Rathergate situation, where the White House seemed to confirm memos that were later discreditted, however, is the searing example. It probably helped Bush retain power that the most damaging accusations against him were pushed out of the limelight, even as the "swiftboating" entered the political lexicon for "slander and libel".

I don't have any sources that can confirm Leopold's writing - I can give you inside information about a host of things, provided I am willing to get into trouble with clients and the SEC - but not about the Fitzgerald investigation. I haven't seen the "work product", that is the raw material that went into the stories. My own impulse, and I told Marc this, is that if the sources have lied about this, then they are not sources and should be burned to the ground - if for no other reason than to protect the news organization and to remind sources that the reporter's protection of anonymity comes at a price - that price is honesty. Since I don't have much more than anyone else does, and in fact, less, because often hearing rumor can distort ones own judgment – I'm not going to engage in scenario spinning here. Either future revelations will bear out what was reported, or they won't.

According to Marc Ash: "We told them we were going with a definitive statement... And they said 'yes'" - meaning confirming the direct assertion that Rove had received a target letter, and that any denial from Luskin is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst. He "expects developments this week" that will prove the facts reported by Leopold and Truthout.

Beyond that, I am waiting along with everyone else, for the results of the investigation. Perhaps this won't make anyone happy - it is a great deal easier to denounce or defend unequivocally that to promote the idea that those of us who don't have inside sources, are going to have to wait until what is currently hidden comes to light.

But I have to say this, Jason my man, if you are wrong about this one, there are people waiting to come down on you like a ton of bricks, and I don't mean from the right wing. And to the doubters, you might want to be as generous, privately, to him if he is right, as you are willing to be harsh if he is wrong.