"I don't promise never to link to things that turn out not to be wrong."

That's Instapundit, in a post admitting that the Drudge story he linked to (about Michael Ware heckling McCain) was full of shit.

Snarky response: given his record, he probably could promise never to link to things that turn out not to be wrong.

More serious response: it's clear what he's trying to say, and this is classic Instapundit--which is to say, some seriously weasely shit.

Look, it's really simple: bloggers are only as credible as their sources. If you constantly link to bad information--to Drudge 'scoops', or RNC talking points laundered through Fox News, or (to be fair) Alexander Cockburn or some crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theorist--you lose your credibility. Instapundit wants to pretend it doesn't work that way. He has a legion of enablers who allow him to persist in this delusion. That doesn't make the delusion true.

And yes, stories evolve over time. There are known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns, and you go to blog with the post you have, not the post you wish you had. Sometimes you get it wrong. That's the legitimate part of what Glenn is trying to say here.

But there's a difference between using the best information you have at the time and still getting it wrong, and jumping on every unsubstantiated rumor you want to be true just because you want it to be true. We've been wrong here, on occasion, but on the whole there's very little I would feel the need to retract. I can think of two stories in particular--the phony Rove indictment story and the white phosphorus story--where a modicum of restraint avoided massive embarrassment.

We're not extraordinary; just careful. There are thousands of blogs that are as good or better at getting it right. That's exactly my point. Nobody gets it right all the time, but (contra Glenn) it really isn't that hard to get it right more often than Instapundit.

(Hat tip: Fardels bear, in a comment at Tbogg.)

Update: Glenn has revised the sentence in question and added this: "(Later: Superfluous "not" removed, above.)" I might quibble with his use of 'superfluous' (the problem with the 'not' was not its superfluity as such, but the fact that it made the sentence say the exact opposite of what he meant), but I congratulate him on finally being able to say what he meant to say...however weasely that may be.