I should say that this WaPo article was relatively good.
It erroneously referred to FReepers as bloggers at some points, as they apparently don't know the difference between a blog and a forum.
Most importantly though, this article avoided the mischaracterizations and slant in previous articles in the WaPo and elsewhere.
I guess in my quest to figure out MD4BUSH's identity, I didn't really comment on the WaPo article itself. It's actually quite decent, and a lot better than earlier articles.
Sure, there are a few relatively minor flaws:
1) The WaPo's keeps on calling this place a blog instead of a forum. This is somewhat understandable, given most of their readers won't appreciate the difference anyway.
2) I think they slightly mischaracterized the WaPo settlement. As I understand it, we can excerpt the most relevant portions of their articles, regardless of where the text appears. This is important because reporters (especially at the NYT) sometimes bury what we think should be the lead.
3) I'm not sure why Jim Robinson was characterized as "reclusive".
IMHO, the Washington Post is not as lost a cause as the New York Times. They at least are listening to our concerns. They also spent considerable effort actually investigating the Swift Boat Veterans' claims. We might not have liked the result of their investigation, but at least they tried.
Call me naive, but I still don't think there's sufficient evidence on this thread to counter the WaPo's contention that they don't even know MD4BUSH's identity. But Jim Robinson knows plenty that we don't know, and seems to be on to something. I don't know what it is, but have watched enough TV crime dramas to know arsonists often return to gawk at the fire. MD4BUSH: Care to explain what you were up to here? Something seems rotten.