Last week watching the coverage of the Libby verdict I wondered how it was possible for so many in the media to completely ignore Joe Wilson’s credibility problems in their reporting. This week, I was even more perplexed watching the media cover the story of the Bush Justice Department firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. How is it so many in the mainstream media think they can get away with deceiving their audience by ignoring the 1993 firings of 93 U.S. Attorneys by Bill Clinton?

The fact that few media reports included a reference to the Clinton firings is a much more important story, in my opinion, than the current firings themselves. The breathless reporting of the eight firings was presented in such a way to give the impression that a horrible and unprecedented crime had been committed. Most in the mainstream media actively misled their audiences by leaving out relevant information and context by refusing to reference similar activities of the previous administration

I learned back in 1993, when he took office, that it was no big deal Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, including at least one working on investigations into his dealings in Arkansas. So when I heard about the recent eight firings, that was the first thing that came to mind, and I made judgments about the current case taking the previous one into consideration. I also could not help but think of the firing of the White House Travel Office by the Clintons to make room for a cousin and of the smearing of Billy Dale. (For those too young to remember Travelgate, check out the late Barbara Olson's book, Hell to Pay.)

I would not be surprised to find that I am in the minority and that most hearing of the recent firings this week would not recall the Clinton cases. One reason is that most are not political news junkies like me, and another is that the Clinton firings were not portrayed the same sinister way in news reports as the current ones have been. I was still surprised, though, that none of the reporters currently covering the story seemed to recall the 93 Clinton firings in their reporting. Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center's "Reality Check" reported the following:

“Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared on five broadcast and cable network TV morning shows to comment on the sudden media-manufactured ‘crisis’ that the Justice Department fired eight U.S. Attorneys, political appointees of the President. None of the Gonzales interviewers - at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FNC - ever mentioned that the Clinton administration fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in 1993... The TV journalists asked Gonzales 42 questions this morning, and not one touched on the previous administration. Every network asked Gonzales whether he would resign – 10 times in total.”

Coverage of stories like this not only show the true bias of a liberal media determined to “get” the current administration, but also show how secure those in the media (as well as Democrats like Hillary Clinton) are that their double standards and hypocrisy will not be exposed. Thanks to people like Brent Bozell and others, they are being exposed in the new media. Now the question is whether or not they will be exposed in the mainstream media or if the facts will remain hidden from the viewers of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN.

The success of new media like talk radio, blogs and the Fox News Channel has provided an outlet for information suppressed by the mainstream media. Thanks to new media, much information once held back by liberal editorial gates now reaches the public. In spite of the fact that new media is reaching increasing numbers, it is still difficult for some information to break into the mainstream outlets. Even facts and stories that are all over the internet and talk radio often remain ignored by the networks and the major daily newspapers.

Even though it is the buzz on the radio and all over the internet, I won’t be surprised if the mainstream media reporters continue to suppress information about the 1993 firings and how they compare to the recent ones. After all, it isn’t likely that all those liberal reporters, who certainly must realize the way information about the 1993 firings would influence public perception of the current case, are all of a sudden going to admit they withheld that information. Just how would a reporter “break” that fourteen-year old news after ignoring it for over a week? Continued...