Lorie Byrd: Hard to sort out the truth in mainstream media

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - 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?

The other widely reported story this week was of a selective leak from a national intelligence estimate written in April — yes, April — which said that the war in Iraq was being used by terrorists as a means of recruiting.

Reports early in the week focused on that one leaked portion of the five-month-old document. The information was frequently reported as a factual conclusion without so much as a “questioning of the timing,” nor a mention of what the rest of the 40 pages of the NIE said about successes and failures in the fight against terrorism. There was not even any reference in most news reports that there were any other opinions or conclusions expressed in the NIE other than the one leaked.

In response to the leak of the NIE excerpt, and to the distorted representation of the report being broadcast to the world, President Bush made the decision to declassify additional parts of the report. The declassified material released on Tuesday included the following statements that could have just as easily been cherry-picked and leaked:

» “United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qaida and disrupted its operations.”

» “Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim-majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qaida, could erode support for the jihadists.”

Many of the statements in the NIE echo ones made by the president in numerous speeches. When reporting the newly released material, however, the Associate Press chose to highlight the part of the report that was leaked previously, running the following lead: “A declassified government intelligence report says the war in Iraq has become a ‘cause celebre’ for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that is likely to get worse before it gets better.”

How can we know what to believe? Does the April NIE report consist of one inerrant statement of fact that the war in Iraq is the root of terrorism in the world today or is it a 40-page document that presents successes and setbacks in the war on terrorism and supports the validity of many of the president’s approaches to the problem of global terrorism?

In the case of both the Clinton and NIE stories, all the reader/viewer needed was the full set of facts in order to know what to believe. Is that too much to ask?

Lorie Byrd is a member of The Examiner’s Blog Board of Contributors and blogs at Wizbangblog.com.

Advertisement