Despair of Blair: Now, the Boston Globe (I'm not going to italicize either) is checking out stories by Blair. What is sort of interesting is that the subjects of his stories complained about them when they were published, but they were never retracted, presumably because the editors asked Blair if they were accurate and he said "yes," and that was that. But doesn't that seem a bit too convenient? Why is it now important to correct stories that were already disputed? Assuming Blair doesn't recant, the only way to prove he was fabricating stories would be to check travel bills, phone records, other extrinsic evidence (also known as "investigative reporting") to play against the purported truth. So, why wasn't the same done when the first complaint was made by the source? The sudden religion that has swept the rags is nice, but kind of like the murderer on death row telling everyone how he's "found the Lord." Or is that a bit harsh?