No one really argues that Smith was right to go with the story
as he did -- bold headline, a single, unverified source. Not even
Smtih argues that. And as Tabin notes, Smith was transparent and
forthcoming as he had new information. Smith and Politico blew it
by any journalistic standard, which they acknowledge.
But these things happen. Why is it emblematic of the
"blogosphere"? First, these mistakes are common enough across the
media. Second, Politico is hardly a bunch of rank amateurs. The
editors include veterans of the Washington
Post and Time, and the quality of
their work so far reflects that. If anything, they are merging the
best of old-school reporting and a new medium -- producing an open
style of reporting and journalism. In this case, blogging worked to
the advantage of accuracy, enabling Smith to change the story and
the headlines as the story developed.