Where's the follow-up story from the media?

Since the mainstream media was all over the Lieberman website non-story back in August 2006, you'd think they'd do the right thing and set the record straight regarding WHO WAS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SITE CRASHING.

Remember Chris Matthews interview with Ned Lamont? Will Tweety be doing a follow-up today?

How about the NYTimes piece that glosses over the FACT that Lieberman paid for a cheap web hosting service, which the "pesky" bloggers figured out before lunchtime on primary day.

How about CNN's the Situation Room...will they be doing a follow-up?

Hartford Courant?

New Haven Register?

WTNH's Mark Davis?

How interesting that OUT OF EVERYONE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, only Brian Lockhart of the Stamford Advocate was courageous enough to stick with the story, do his homework, filed a FOIA request, and exposed what us bloggers said NEARLY TWO YEARS AGO.

A federal investigation has concluded that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's 2006 re-election campaign was to blame for the crash of its Web site the day before Connecticut's heated Aug. 8 Democratic primary.

[...]

According to the FBI memo, the site crashed because Lieberman officials continually exceeded a configured limit of 100 e-mails per hour the night before the primary.

"The system administrator misinterpreted the root cause," the memo stated. "The system administrator finally declared the server was being attacked and the Lieberman campaign accused the Ned Lamont campaign. The news reported this on Aug. 8, 2006, causing additional Web traffic to visit the site.

"The additional Web traffic then overwhelmed the Web server. . . . Web traffic pattern analysis reports and Web logging that was available did not demonstrate traffic that was indicative of a denial of service attack."

100 emails per hour for a senatorial campaign=cheap web hosting service.

I'll see if the media picks up on this story tonight but I'm not holding my breath.