There was something intriguing in the strong reaction to Jon Ward's Fishwrap post yesterday about 13-year-old Jessica Hackerd, who burst out in tears after President Bush responded sarcastically to her question about immigration Tuesday.

A slew of major blogs offered comment on the exchange between the president and the Ohio girl. Conservative bloggers commenting included Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, Ace of Spades and James Joyner of Outside the Beltway. On the Left, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Think Progress and TBogg weighed in. (Readers are free to see what was said at those blogs -- understanding that a link is not an endorsement.)

It was something of a Rashomon -- people seemed to see what they wanted to see. Was Mr. Bush being rude? Or was he just blindsided by an unexpected reaction to one of his standard in-jokes? Was Jessica crying because of Mr. Bush's remark? Or was it just a dramatic case of youthful stagefright? What does this incident say about Mr. Bush? Was his apparent flippancy a characteristic act that exemplified something fundamental about his presidency? Or was it just a simple and anomalous misunderstanding?

You, the reader, are free to decide for yourself what it means. Mr. Ward did his job as a reporter -- reporting the facts of an incident that was newsworthy, simply because it was so unusual. It isn't everyday that a 13-year-old's question provokes an 1,100-word response from the Commander-in-Chief, and it isn't everyday that an encounter with the president reduces a child to tears.

Facts are facts, news is news, but some reactions -- both in other blogs, and in the dozens of comments on the originial Fishwrap post -- tried to "attack the messenger" in one of two typical ways.

On the one hand, some conservatives seem to suggest that the job of The Washington Times is to act as a P.R. agency for the Bush administration, e.g., "Why are you reporting this? This is the kind of hateful Bush-bashing we usually expect from the Left!"

On the other hand, there was a certain befuddlement on the part of some liberal commenters that this story, potentially embarrassing to the president, would be reported by "the right-wing Washington Times."

Both of these attitudes involve a certain misunderstanding of the role and mission of The Times as a news organization. To begin with, from Day One of the paper's founding in 1982 -- and without apology -- The Times has sought to position itself as an alternative to what in recent years bloggers have come to be called the "MSM" (the "mainstream media" that Rush Limbaugh of late has taken to calling the "drive-by media").

What does it mean to be an alternative? After the 1992 election, one study reported that 89 percent of Washington journalists had voted for Bill Clinton -- a 12-to-1 advantage for the Democrat, in an election where only 42 percent of American voters had made the same choice. Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center, among many others over the years, have charged that the MSM have a systemic and consistent bias that is identifiably as "liberal."

What does it mean to provide an alternative to the MSM's reporting of the news (as opposed to opinion or commentary)? Well, in many cases, it simply means reporting legitimate news stories that the MSM ignores.

But what being an alternative cannot mean is ignoring legitimate news stories just because those stories might be perceived as harmful to some Republican official, or trying to suppress the facts because reporting the news might hinder the pet agenda of some faction of the Republican Party.

So when Sen. David Vitter confesses to "a very serious sin" in the matter of the "D.C. Madam," that's news, and it's worth mentioning on Fishwrap. The fact that Mr. Vitter is a Republican doesn't at all diminish the newsworthiness of that story (nor, however, does it increase the news value).

Since the MSM will predictably jump all over a story like that, what is the "alternative" value of The Washington Times in such a scenario? Well, for one thing, The Times will not ignore sources discussing the Vitter story from a conservative viewpoint. As a matter of fact, my Louisiana friend Jeff Crouere just e-mailed me his latest column:

Nine years after Hustler publisher Larry Flynt exposed the extramarital affairs of former Congressman Bob Livingston, he has uncovered the involvement of U.S. Senator David Vitter with the D.C. Madam. So, the political score is Hustler 2, Louisiana Republican leaders 0. ...
It is sickening and disheartening for a Louisiana Senator to be compromised by a sleaze merchant like Larry Flynt, but the publisher did expose Vitter and shed the light of truth on his misdeeds.

Mr. Crouere -- a staunch conservative -- seems scarcely predispositioned to grant a free pass to the senator, just because the senator is a Republican. And it's the same thing with Mr. Bush's embarassing encounter in Cleveland with 13-year-old Jessica.

The facts are the facts, and the news is the news.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times