Credit to David Ignatius and John Harris of the Washington Post for admitting mistakes and rededicating themselves to truthtelling.

Ignatius admitted:

In a column last week, I praised Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel for his prescient early warnings about the risks of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Some readers complained that for all his prescience, Hagel still voted to support the war, and that I was ignoring the many Democrats who were similarly wary of Iraq -- and who voted against war funding. These readers are right. Hagel took political risks expressing his concerns back in 2003, but so did Democrats who voted against the Iraq mission despite a vitriolic barrage from the administration.

I have been very hard on Mr. Ignatius. Fairness requires we acknowledge and thank Ignatius for this correction.

Similarly, and more importantly, John Harris accepts some critiques that have been levelled at the Media:

In my experience, the vast majority of political reporters approach ideological questions with what you might call centrist bias. . . . It took me a while to realize how this instinct for rationalist, difference-splitting politics can itself be a form of bias. . . Who needs a bunch of reporters popping off with their views? It is hard enough—and honorable enough—to aim to report and analyze politics fairly and with a disciplined effort to transcend bias. That is what we will do in this new venture.

Good for you and your new venture Mr. Harris. Credit to you for acknowledging mistakes. I look forward to seeing your future work.