LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

WASHINGTON - How can we know what to believe? That is what a neighbor asked me several weeks ago over dinner. We were discussing the fact that she no longer believes everything she sees in the news and often wonders what is the truth.

While there have been news stories found to have been fabricated, and even some news photos staged and digitally altered, more often of concern are technically truthful stories which have been slanted by selective reporting. Two stories over the past week are examples.

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.

Instead of reporting about a former president who lost his composure and made statements that could not withstand scrutiny, the interview was spun by many news outlets as a forceful defense of Clinton’s efforts to capture bin Laden.

How can we know what to believe? Is the former president throwing a red-faced temper tantrum and making false assertions in a last-ditch effort to guard what is left of his legacy or is a terrorist-fighting elder statesman making a fact-based, forceful and heartfelt defense of his administration’s tireless efforts to capture Osama bin Laden?