[Neverforget01]

Does Ruth belief that because the story is being covered by bloggers it isn't true? I think I'm missing her point.

It's wiser to follow the blogosphere Ruth disdains to get the truth because we sure as hell can't count on her newspaper. That must suck for her.

[maggief]

Just goes to show how wrong Ruth was/is. That article was written Aug 17, 2006.

Here's a recent blog entry:

Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Elmo found not guilty

The cabbie who provides a neat alibi for one of the three accused in the Duke lacrosse case was found not guilty of aiding and abetting a larceny. The cabbie, affectionately known as Elmo here in the blogosphere, was accused of assisting a habitual shoplifter make off with $250 worth of handbags -- three years ago.
The warrant wasn't served until Elmo surfaced as a witness (and innocent bystander) in the lacrosse mess. That, even though he continued to drive for the same cab company -- of which he was part-owner -- and even continued to drive the same cab. Durham authorities claimed they were foiled by misspellings of Elmo's name.
More on this in Thursday's column....

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/ruth/index.php?blog=48&c=1&page=1&more=1&title=elmo_found_not_guilty&tb=1&pb=1&disp=single

[old and cranky]

Bloggers are not real "journalists" like herself so what they discover isn't relevant.