My fellow Examiner Blog-boarder Lorie Byrd pens a critique of the media in its recent coverage of war-related stories. She points out examples of bias and incompetent reporting in the stories about the Clinton-Wallace interview and the NIE release, and wonders why reporters cannot perform simple research when reaching unsupported conclusions:
The first story that got a lot of attention this week was the Fox News Sunday interview with Bill Clinton. News anchor Chris Wallace asked Clinton the question, “Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaida out of business when you were president?”
For that, he was attacked by a visibly angry, finger-pointing Clinton, and later by some on the left, for conducting a “conservative hit job.”
It is understandable that the theatrics of the interview got lots of attention, although none of the networks showed the most unhinged clips.
What was focused on by few, however, was the content of Clinton’s remarks, including the demonstrably false statements he made during the interview. DNA does not apply in this case, but surely those reporting on this story have heard of a LexisNexis or Google search. Few, if any, thought to do either one, though.
Bloggers know how to do research, and those who follow the blogosphere got all the context they needed to deconstruct Clinton’s arguments. The same is true with the NIE, which the New York Times misrepresented in its initial reporting. Lorie wonders when the national media will finally catch up with its readers and start to rebuild its damaged credibility. Be sure to read all of Lorie’s article.