"welcome to the party, everyone. interesting he decided to show up a year and a half after everybody else." and we are supposed to verify things but that means investigating them, not immediately discarding and shutting them down and saying they're not worth investigating. that's different. my take is is there some self introspection from these outlets? megan mcardle at "the washington post" wrote this. she said, "i have heard all the excuses as to why this is working as it should. it was unverified. i've heard it was too close to an election. even if the emails i real, we can't have that. all of which might sound very reasonable if only my profession had displayed the same caution with stories that made conservatives look bad." she ends the piece saying, "we are not tested because you're not entirely trustworthy." so this is a good time provisions take a look in the mirror and decide that the next time one of the stories pops up, how will they handle it? >> kayleigh: it's very wise introspection you just read because far too many outlets just threw it aside and didn't