I stick with what I said.

Blog or no blog, you’re in a journalist’s role here, and no ethical journalist alters an original document, period. It should never cross his mind to do so. That is my point.

As for “fact-checking” (if you even understand what the term means), that is your own responsibility. That you clearly don’t appreciate the ethics of the enterprise in which you’re engaged is troubling.

Standards of veracity are more elastic for a blogger? A sickening thought. Considering the prevarication and outright manufacture of “fact” so frequent in the media now–most particularly in the very blogs and outlets on which you report here–that you would join the game is unsettling. Where does it stop? Seriously, Dude, where does it stop?

I’m not sorry to annoy you about this, but I am sorry that all you take from it is annoyance.

There is something else brewing here – if Cardinal Iniguez has proof that undue influence was used in a judicial process, he has the obligation to report that not to the press, but to a federal prosecutor.

Cardinal Iniguez is already being sued for defamation – and it doesn’t seem improbable that Ebrard (who is Jewish and lives smack in the middle of Condesa, one of the DF’s gayest neighborhoods) will win his case. But he could also find himself being investigated and even prosecuted for withholding evidence or obstruction of justice.

This case could become far juicier than we imagine. It’s not just a case of mud slinging – given the allegations that the Cardinal has made, he may find himself an unintentional party in a criminal investigation.

I would not want to be the Cardinal right now. He may resort to the clowned-up outfit as a means of escaping Mexico. Maybe he’ll join Salinas de Gortari in Dublin?

I wasn’t “shocked” though, as I tend to read comments before I post any.

The thing about blogs is that the discussion often reveals things that aren’t apparent or happen to be missing from the original post. Here and elsewhere I’ve seen bloggers pull a comment up into the story because it furthers a point or adds new insight. There is often a lag between something revealed in the comments and getting added to the main story.

It is a rather organic medium, which is often an asset.

I guess the lesson to Timothy is that he’s a little too good at subtle/believable photoshopping. You’ll have to exaggerate from now on so the masses aren’t fooled so easily!

I “presented it” at 4:20 on the 18th. I “only later admitted” that I’d clowned up the clothes at 5:02 of the same day. (PDT)

You came along around 11:41 on the 19th and “wondered what season he was in and what the circles represented”. So yeah, I guess I “fooled you”… until you got to the very first two comments.

At which point you decided that I was “no longer a journalist” and had “yanked the rug from beneath your credibility, and the credibility of this site and all the others who write for the site” and perhaps all of the blogosphere as well.

Seriously, Dude, this is a friggin blog site. We don’t deceive people on purpose but we don’t have fact checkers or an editorial staff to say, “hey, your clown parody isn’t obvious.” If we make errors – and we do – we try to fix them. But we don’t hold ourselves out to be the rival of the NY Times.

I thought it was clear that the Cardinal didn’t really go around dressed in clown clothes. But as soon as I learned that the first person was confused, I clarified. And when I got back on the site the next morning and found out that it still wasn’t clear, I added the nose and hair.

It’s all part of my wackadoodle theme… a clown theme which I’ve been using since March including an earlier “clowning up” of Maggie Gallagher. But I guess I didn’t make it clear enough this time. My error.

If this now makes you question everything you read here… what can I say? Other than that maybe it’s kind of a good thing to do that with everything you read on a blog site. Including Box Turtle Bulletin.

My error; I should not mistake you for a journalist (notwithstanding that you seem often to pose as one). My error, because no ethical reporter would alter an original document and post it as truth, which is what you did.

And in the doing, you yanked the rug from beneath your credibility, and the credibility of this site and all the others who write for the site; now, whatever you post will come with a small question mark attached.

Not knowing journalistic ethics, and so not bound by them, you will be puzzled by what I’ve just said. You might even wonder why this “credibility” thing would be so important to your readers. That would be too bad, for all of us.

Yes, you fooled me. Like Priya and Lauderdale above, I thought the photo (pre funny hair and red nose) was real. I went by it several times and wondered what sort of vestment it was.

As a former Episcopalian, I’m aware of with-it liturgical modernity (potato chips and Coke at campus Eucharist, anyone?), and also aware of the liturgical year; I wondered what season he was in and what the circles represented. And believe me, a garish vestment seemed entirely plausible in a country that lights its beautiful churches with fluorescent tubes (I’ve seen them).

You’re lucky that you don’t work for a genuine journalistic enterprise. I guarantee that had you pulled this stunt there, you’d have been handed your final paycheck, your effects in a box, and been escorted out of the building.

There are (true) stories to that effect; of typesetters fired on the spot after inserting “Mickey Mouse” into interminable lists of graduation names; of A.J. Leibling fired from the NYT for altering the minutiae of high school box scores. Credibility is that important to any news organization.

Seriously, Dude, you don’t alter original documents and post them without notice of the alteration. It’s that simple and it’s that important.

I’d guess that this seems all pursey-lipped and finger waggy to you. That’s your choice, if so. But readers of this blog, and of the other writers on this blog, have a right to expect veracity and everything else that trails that expectation. You’ve just thrown a question mark into the whole equation.