Folks:

As part of the new release, I've made sure that TTLB's infrastructure is ready to handle an influx of new blog Communities --- and as a result, I'm now accepting requests for new ones.

Communities are simply groups of blogs related by common interests, beliefs, or other characteristics, so if you and fellow bloggers would like to start one, and get your own Community page at TTLB, sign up using the form above and I'll get you set up. We've already had quite a few new requests come in from the backlog, and I'll be posting further today to highlight the new arrivals...

Where's Wilford Brimley* when you need him?

So ABC runs a story that says Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress.

Do they provide context of what being "in the mix" might mean, as opposed to, hypothetically, being "under investigation"?

They do not.

But now, after a rather flat denial from the Justice department ("Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department."), ABC is standing by its story --- sort of:

Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress....ABC’s law enforcement sources said the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal “target” or “subject” of the investigation.

One of ABC's rather helpful sources goes even further, complimenting ABC for their careful wording:

"You guys wrote the story very carefully but they are not reading it very carefully," a senior official said.

Well, they say if you can make one person happy, then you've accomplished something.

So here's a few questions for our intrepid colleagues at ABC:

1) Why didn't ABC provide any explanation or context in the original story for the rather bizarre phrasing "in the mix" ? Did they ask their source if Hastert was an actual target or subject of an investigation? If yes, what did the source say? If no, why the heck not?

2) At least two (ABC specifes sources, plural) officials are leaking** like a sieve on this story. Why? In ABC's opinion, what is their motivation? Disclosing details of an investigation in progress is a bit of a big deal, last I checked. So why are these sources doing it? And why wasn't some explanation of ABC's perspective on their motivations included in the story?

3) It would be nice if ABC could help me understand the following:

Law enforcement sources told ABC News that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff has provided information to the FBI about Hastert and a number of other members of Congress that have broadened the scope of the investigation. Sources would not divulge details of the Abramoff’s information.

One focus involves a letter Hastert wrote in 2003 urging the Secretary of the Interior to block an Indian casino that would have competed with tribes represented by Abramoff.

Emphasis mine. So help me out here: your sources "would not divulge details", but two paragraphs later, you're specifying the exact area of focus that is zeroing in on Hastert. Sounds pretty detailed to me. So while we're doing details, what about this question: "a number of other members" could mean one. It could mean 434. Which is it? Or at least, which one is it closer to? What did your source say when you asked them? And why isn't that answer worth publishing? (It's the Internet: the bits are cheap).

In conclusion: yes, I know you want to play Woodward in the garage with your source(s), keeping them all mysterious and such (it's fun!), and sparing the ignorant masses the details of the messy sausage-making that goes into producing a news story. But with a piece like this, the way you got the information is just as important as the information itself -- sometimes more. A good blogger would never have run this story without some context on how and, in their judgment, why they got the information --- and a good professional journalist shouldn't have either.

Update: Oh, it gets better and better! Hugh Hewitt points out something I missed: that it would appear that ABC News has changed the text of the story currently on their web site since its original publication!

So here's the first paragraphs as they appear right now (8:41pm PDT):

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.

But Hugh indicates that "Hastert's office" provided a different version. Which reminded me that I received the story, in email, from a Republican Senator's office at 3:49pm. Here's the first paragraphs of that version:

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from high level government sources.

Federal officials say the information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government."

Pretty important difference! So I'll add #4 to my list of questions: is it the policy of ABC news to make substantive changes to high-profile news stories without acknowledging them as corrections?

Update Again: I went looking for a cached version of the original ABC News story, with no luck. But I got the next best thing, just in case anyone's feeling conspiracy minded and doesn't believe that ABC actually ran with the stronger-worded version.

Check out this screen capture of Memeorandum from just a few moments ago: