Inspired by this post (by Freelance Journalist Dennis), last month I questioned the following assertion by Salon.com's Senior Editor Eric Boehlert that the United States Air Force began drug screening tests in 1972:

In 1972 he asked to be transferred to an Alabama unit so he could work on a Senate campaign for a friend of his father's. But some skeptics have speculated that Bush might have dropped out to avoid being tested for drugs. Which is where Air Force Regulation 160-23, also known as the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, comes in. The new drug-testing effort was officially launched by the Air Force on April 21, 1972, following a Jan. 11, 1972, directive issued by the Department of Defense.

And now I see that there's yet another letter to the Washington Times from Colonel Campenni which states that the Air Force did not begin its drug testing program until the 1980s:

Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.

It goes without saying that there's a lot of false information on the Internet, but I was surprised to see it coming (apparently) from a source most people assume is reputable. When I have on occasion cited WorldNetDaily or Newsmax.com, people have told me that these sources are unreliable, and that I shouldn't cite them because nothing they write can be believed.

I try to focus on whether something is true, and even if there's skepticism about the source, discussing public opinion and attempting to get at the facts is what blogging is all about. I saw a clear conflict between what Boehlert wrote and what a military insider says, and what I remembered from my own experience. Boehlert's assertion just seemed wrong, but not in the ordinary way. The assertion of a military regulation, complete with detailed dates and numbers, seemed so thoroughly authoritative that if it turned out to be wrong, at the very least, an explanation was in order. I can find no explanation or retraction, anywhere, from Eric Boehlert.

What's the protocol here? I'm a little stumped over what to do. Should I go on that all-in-the-same-boat cruise and ask him?

Nah! I'm not an in-your-face type of guy, and besides, I just got back from a cruise. (NOTE: It's only fair to point out, however, that I never would have learned about the Salon cruise but for Glenn Reynolds' spontaneous free advertising.)

And it's not that big of a deal, really, because I'm a First Amendment absolutist, and I think that even if he was found to be lying and making stuff up, Eric Boehlert should have every right to do that.

So why don't I just shut the hell up? Even if an online journalist made stuff up, so what?

Normally I wouldn't be so bothered, but considering what Boehlert said recently, I'm a little concerned about a double standard:

In an article entitled "Unfit for Bookstores," Eric Boehlert of Salon.com reported that a representative of the Kerry campaign had said Regnery Publishing, which printed Unfit for Command, is retailing a hoax and should consider withdrawing it from bookstores.

"No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them, especially falsehoods that are meant to smear the military service of an American veteran," said Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton. "If I were them, I'd be ducking under my desk wondering what to do. This is a serious problem."

While acknowledging that the book is a bestseller, Boehlert referred to "a long-standing tradition by reputable publishers of withdrawing titles that prove to be hoaxes or frauds.

"Just last month, Random House's Australian unit was forced to pull an international bestseller after it was determined to be a fabrication," Boehlert wrote. "The book, Forbidden Love, allegedly detailed the death of a Jordanian woman murdered by her Muslim father after he discovered she was seeing a Christian man. After questions were raised, an internal investigation by Random House concluded the book was a fraud."

Boehlert then said that Unfit for Command and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "are facing similar questions" after an article printed Thursday in the Washington Post questioned the veracity of Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam.

Thurlow insisted that Kerry lied about the circumstances surrounding his Bronze Star award, claiming Kerry's boat never came under enemy fire on March 13, 1969, the day an injured Kerry leaned overboard to scoop wounded Green Beret Jim Rassmann out of the river.

"Contrary to Thurlow's claim," Boehlert noted, the Post reported that, according to his own military files recording the events of that day, "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" were directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla, including Kerry's.

However, as reported Thursday by CNSNews.com, Thurlow responded that John Kerry's own report 35 years ago was the basis for the military records the Post used in its story.

At the end of his article, Boehlert suggested that even "if Regnery doesn't withdraw the book, perhaps bookstore retailers will at least consider moving the title over to the fiction section."

What if he has promulgated (or fabricated) a lie about Air Force drug testing? Either the "long-standing tradition by reputable publishers" he champions applies to Salon or it does not.

Hope my suspicions are unfounded, because I've always enjoyed Salon.