I'm just as surprised as everyone else to discover that the first New York Times public editor, Daniel Okrent, would turn out to be the the toughest, most critical and most honest of the Times ombudsmen.

I make this note in the wake of Sunday's column by new ombudsman Clark Hoyt. John Hinderaker over at Powerline notes that Hoyt apparently didn't do his own research -- instead relying on one line in an old AP story for the basis for his flawed thesis. The thesis: "Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story."

Hinderaker does a little research of his own and comes up with this:

Got that? The administration is blaming al Qaeda for violence in Iraq, to the "virtual exclusion of other sources;" al Qaeda is the "single villain." Hoyt doesn't seem to have done any research to bolster this claim. Instead, he cites an Associated Press story from exactly one month ago that, according to Hoyt, found "that although some 30 groups have claimed credit for attacks on United States and Iraqi government targets, press releases from the American military focus overwhelmingly on Al Qaeda."

I decided to test that claim by reviewing the press releases that the Multi-National Force has put out so far in July. There are a total of 87 press releases, which I thought would be a representative sample, as well as, obviously, an up to date one.

I found that only 29 of those 87 press releases mentioned al Qaeda at all; 58, or two-thirds, made no reference to that organization. Further, of those that attributed violent acts to some enemy of the U.S. and the Iraqi government, 37 mentioned persons other than al Qaeda; e.g., "insurgents," an "extremist group," an "IED cell," etc. So, far from focusing on al Qaeda to the "virtual exclusion" of other groups, 55% of the time, the military does not mention al Qaeda at all.

You knew journalists were bad at math, but this is a laugher. "The virtual exclusion of other sources" = 45 percent of the time.

We'll see what kind of journalist Hoyt is in the coming week or so as he either admits error or doubles down on stupid.