TOM MAGUIRE: “The NY Times seems to think the political contributions of the sacked CIA officer are significant, but their investigative skills are apparently a bit rusty, since they are about $7,500 light in their reporting.”

UPDATE: Lots of bloggers are jumping on this story: More here, here, and a big roundup here.

I’m pretty sure I know what the talk-radio folks will be talking about next week.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Still more here.

MORE: The coverage seems a bit warped:

If you want a good sense of where the media’s mind is in the wake of the Mary McCarthy story, check this out. . It’s an AP story about McCarthy’s firing. Guess whose picture is at the top? Not McCarthy. Not Dana Priest. Not anybody involved in the story at all, actually. It’s a picture of Scooter Libby — who’s not even mentioned in the article.

I won’t be surprised if they end up fixing it soon. But it’s there now.

So does that mean AP thinks McCarthy is the Plame source? . . .

MORE: A rather negative review of the New York Times’ defense of Mary McCarthy. [Defense? Aren’t they a neutral news source? — ed. No.]

STILL MORE: Chester invokes some literary cliches.