It's symptomatic of the current political situation that many appear willing to give bogus desperado James Frey a pass. For the uninitiated, Frey's the author whose best-selling memoir of booze and drug addiction "A Million Little Pieces," turned out to be more like "A Thousand and One Falsehoods." Few of the checkable facts examined by SmokingGun.com proved true. Frey's melodramatic confession was largely imaginary.

Even so, a friend whose judgment I respect said the book gave her a vivid picture of an addict's mind. Um, yeah. So long as you realize that every addict's a deceiver. All memoirs have subjective elements. But I'm old school. If Frey fabricated a nonexistent prison record, and fantasized having his girlfriend killed by a train, why believe anything he says?

A small point worth keeping in mind: Broadly speaking, and contrary to popular opinion, books today may be the least reliable sources of information. Too many publishers will promote anything they think might sell. Authors who practice traditional, fact-based journalism often find themselves trading in a debased currency.

Moreover, what's true in book publishing increasingly applies to the news media generally. Politically, this is very dangerous. Uncertain whom to trust, people are left to believe pretty much anything they want to believe, as wishful thinking and propaganda drive out valid information almost across the board.

But some citizens are fighting back. Consider a couple of recent episodes in the news. Recently, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell -- supposedly the reader's representative at the newspaper -- wrote a column asserting that convicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff "made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

This is categorically false. Although the phrase "Abramoff Democrats" has become a favorite of GOP editorialists frantically trying to spread the blame, the former head of the College Republicans gave nothing to Democrats. (Irked by its appearance in a recent editorial, I Googled the phrase and got 12,600 hits.)

That doesn't mean all Democrats are pure. But none are implicated in the Abramoff bribery scandal. Indeed, the infamous "K Street Project" run by Abramoff, resigned House majority leader Tom DeLay and their chums, was essentially a shakedown.

After the GOP captured the House in 1994, lobbyists and interest groups who'd supported Democrats were shown spreadsheets documenting past contributions and told that until they hired Abramoff and his proteges, and redirected their money to Republicans, they'd get no consideration.

Once the GOP controlled the Senate and the White House, it began to pay off like a gold mine. As the Post itself reported almost two years ago, "Under Abramoff's guidance (native American tribes running gambling casinos) have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show ..."

No, they didn't quit Democrats altogether. But this isn't a campaign-donations scandal, it's a bribery scandal. Abramoff and his chums went beyond lobbying. They distributed payola for votes.

Upbraided by readers, the Post ombudsman stonewalled. Whether her initial error was intentional regurgitation of GOP agit-prop, Howell compounded it by pretending she didn't grasp the difference between a felonious bribe by Abramoff and a legal campaign contribution from one of his clients. (Many of whom he cheated.)

Urged by liberal bloggers, readers flooded the Post's online comments line with harsh criticisms. Howell was eventually forced to capitulate, writing that "it's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal." But not before swooning like a Victorian gentlewoman over the supposedly abusive insults of her critics. Editors soon shut down the online comments altogether. For the time being, The Washington Post has an ombudsman who refuses to communicate with the public.

There's a bird called a killdeer, which nests in rocky places on the ground and lures predators away from its eggs by pretending to have a broken wing. The Washington Post did a pretty fair imitation. Even so, it was a heartening outcome.

So who's going to take on Karl Rove's latest calumny? Seeking to divert attention from the Bush administration's illegal, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, Rove gave a speech to a Republican audience claiming that "President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Oh yeah? Like who? Everybody in America who can count past two knows that this is a damned lie. Nobody opposes spying on Al Qaeda. Nobody.

What they're against is Bush evading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court set up to issue legitimate warrants, voiding the Fourth Amendment and claiming the powers of a king.

A power addict, Rove's become the James Frey of the White House. Let's see if there's a reporter in Washington with the guts to make him answer this question or eat it.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist Gene Lyons is a national magazine award winner and co-author of "The Hunting of the President" (St. Martin's Press, 2000). You can e-mail Lyons at genelyons2@sbcglobal.net.