Actually her retraction was based on a source contacting her and she did the responsible thing by retracting from her book and blog. She didn't have to have the Press Secretary for the POTUS ask her to do it. Whether you like her or not there's no indication from this that she did shoddy work.

Yeah, but the U.S. Army doesn't, right?

...And no expectation that terrorists (a.k.a. militants, fighters, etc.) should do the same.

"I still refuse to believe that any but the fringe media are quite there. Sadly, though, the effective difference is nil."

Are they on the other side? No. But reporting as if the U.S. and the insurgents are morally equal, and giving especial emphasis to isolated acts committed by American soldiers, has the same effect: A propaganda victory for the enemy.

No, you wouldn't. Because you aren't actually nuts. But sometimes you and Glenn like to talk like you are, because it gets you rhetorical points. But either show the courage of your convictions and let us know that you've decided to go off the deep end or realize that calling a reporter a member of "the other side" is no less silly than saying Bush = Hitler.

One of the press' defenses (and also that of its sympathizers) is that the press polices itself.

If Malkin issues a retraction, how is that any worse than the NYT or the Detroit Free Press admitting they screwed up?

It would seem to me that it's "the height of responsibility" for Malkin to correct her book, in the same manner as the MSM claims to be responsible.

Let's face it, she's done a better job by that one step alone than, say, Michael Bellesiles did/has done.

Well, duh. It's called ad hominem. Rather than attacking the argument, you attack the person. Whether Malkin is a good writer really has nothing to do with her claims, which either have merit or they do not.

And the errata you cite are 1) her own admission, not widely publicized anywhere, 2) over the use of adjectives which are probably true but had to be inferred, and 3) did not spark riots that killed over a dozen people.

So, flushing Korans down toilets is "fake, but accurate," b/c it was conceivable that it might be happening.

But

Saddam actually having WMD was not possible despite:

1. His having used them on Iranians.
2. His having used them on Iraqis.
3. His having hidden the program from inspectors.
4. His failing to come clean on what he had done w/ the materials that he had had but had not disposed of.

Riiiight.