Lee,

You may think I've assessed Big Journalism incorrectly – fair enough – but surely you discriminate based on outlet in our own reading. When you're in line at the checkout counter, and you see a headline on the National Enquirer, you probably don't take the time to research it.

In the past, I've discovered egregiously misleading material on the Web sites that Andrew Breitbart sponsors, pointed it out to Mr. Breitbart, and been surprised that he refused to correct the record. Dan Riehl, the author of this post, has written untrue things about me on numerous occasions. He has also hurled the most scurrilous kinds of insults at me and others. Can I ask you something? If you'd alerted the publisher of a Web site to an significant inaccuracy, and he refused to remedy it – and if afterward that same Web site started publishing attacks on your character, some of them including factual inaccuracies – would you trust other content on that Web site? Or would you tend to look elsewhere when a very complicated story comes out, and you don't have the time to do in depth research into it yourself?

Lee, you won't see many people acknowledge it publicly, but there are a whole lot of right-leaning journalists who don't trust anything that appears on these sites. Ask around. You'll see that I'm right. They'll tell you that the Shirley Sherrod story seemed like clear video evidence of something... and it turned out to be just the opposite. They'd say, after that, why should we trust any video Breitbart publishes? Who knows if it too has been taken out of context. I agree that one shouldn't dismiss this story just because Breitbart is involved. I haven't done so. I'll be watching the debate about Dan Foster's piece at National Review. I'll read coverage of this elsewhere too. And if you want your work to be taken seriously on this matter, I suggest that you persuade an editor at a more trusted outlet that you've got a good story. Places like The Wall Street Journal, The Claremont Review Of Books, The Weekly Standard, Real Clear Politics – these and other outlets aren't ideologically hostile to the Pigford story. But they do have a higher bar for what they publish than Andrew Breitbart. So long as you're doing honest journalism, I wish you the best of luck, regardless of how your stories come out. And I think if you are honest with yourself, you'd see that in my position, you'd react to this matter exactly as I am.

When it comes to economic liberty right-leaning commentators may be "on my side." But they're certainly not on my side when it comes to other matters libertarians care about – executive power, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, foreign policy, and many other matters besides. And I define "my side" as being about more than politics. I value civility and honesty, and Breitbart has lied to me and about me. He also takes an "end justifies the means" approach to political discourse that I abhor.

Go read what I've written about Rand Paul and Gary Johnson, or the Patriot Act, or separation of powers, or federalism, or the budget deficit, and you'll see a lot of libertarian positions.