PALO ALTO, Calif. (CNN/Money) - There are two ways a reasonable investor can react to revelations this week in the Washington Post that AOL might have acted too aggressively in its accounting of certain revenues.

Some -- even those that are steering clear of AOL's AOL stock (AOL: down $0.87 to $11.58, Research, Estimates) -- are dismissive, noting that the numbers in question are minuscule, just $270 million, or 5 percent of AOL's total revenue. (Just as many investors excused recent accounting allegations against Bristol Myers and Merck.)

But there's a much more cynical way to interpret the Post's findings, and it seems to be the more popular approach these days, explaining the market recent plunge. The Washington Post is not a forensic accountancy. It operates without the subpoena power of the Justice Department. It doesn't have the investigations staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission. And yet it found $270 million in questionable revenues. Imagine what else lies beneath the surface. (By the way, I am an employee and shareholder of AOL Time Warner.)

Of course, this is shooting first and asking questions later (AOL's stock is down some 12 percent since Wednesday's close). Presuming the accused is guilty until proven innocent. Choose your cliché. But again, this isn't a morals lesson. It's an explanation of why the market is behaving the way it is. Until every stone is turned over and scrubbed, investors will assume there's dirt below it, from the best companies in the land to the worst.

RECENTLY BY ADAM LASHINSKY       The 'real' options problem Making the 'sell' decision Coping with fear

Incidentally, AOL -- which my sources said earlier in the year was worth $22 for its Time Warner component alone -- has been down this path before. Back in 1996 short sellers were convinced America Online was playing fast and loose with its marketing expenses by calling them capital costs (that is, treating them as assets).

In fact, AOL was practicing fuzzy math and eventually was fined $3.5 million in mid-2000. Two messages were clear at the time, one that explains why AOL allegedly continued to push the envelope and a second that might offer hope to investors today. The gentle wrist slapping AOL received from the SEC told the entire market that breaking the rules isn't such a bad thing. What if the SEC had come down hard on AOL then?

The second lesson cuts the other way. Short sellers were right about AOL's aggressiveness, but their accounting savvy prevented the short sellers from seeing that AOL had a helluva business in signing up new customers to the Internet. Could it be that investors today are just as blind to the value of a magazine, movie, music, television and yes, Internet subscription business?

Deutsche Bank wireless analyst Brian Modoff puts his best spin possible on the investment thesis that has disappointed investors almost as much as the broadband debacle -- namely so-called third-generation wireless services, or 3G for short. The title of the new report: "The Rise of the 3G Empire: Even Rome Had Its Bad Days."

Adam Lashinsky is a senior writer for Fortune magazine. Send e-mail to Adam at adam_lashinsky@timeinc.com.

Sign up to receive The Bottom Line by e-mail.