The media / journalists have an important job — to get the facts right and to put those facts in a fair context. Reporters need to stop listening to each other and just reading each other’s work and then repeating it. When they just listen to each other, they just repeat their mistakes. That is bad. Journalists should do original reporting – go to primary sources.
If they did original reporting, the would know that yes, the prosecutor in Wisconsin in a document accused Governor Scott Walker of a crime (that is common and routine for a prosecutor) BUT OBVIOUSLY THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY SINCE NEVER CHARGED HIM WITH A CRIME. That is a HUGE difference – accusing v. charging. If the prosecutor thought Walker committed a crime, he just had to fill out a paper and charge him. And if he thought Walker committed a crime, it was his job to charge him – but that did not happen. Second, a Federal Judge ruled later that the conduct the prosecutor objected to is not a crime, that the conduct fits within a loophole of the campaign law. That ruling is now on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit but if it is upheld, it means that the prosecutor accused Governor Walker of innocent conduct (conduct that is not illegal.) If it is reversed, then Walker may have trouble but that is not where the facts stand now.
If they did original reporting, they would have read the court file in the Arkansas case (I did) and seen that the affidavit filed by then 27 year old lawyer Hillary Rodham was a routine application for a court ordered psychiatric evaluation of the complainant. It was not Clinton going after the accuser – but rather filing a routine application in her constitutional job to represent a client. Clinton said she had reports about the complainant and wanted the Court to pursue it further with an examination. That’s routine. Second, if they did original reporting, they would have LISTENED to the tape and learned that Clinton’s laughter (sarcastic I thought) was about polygraphs and not the complainant or the charge. Like with Governor Scott Walker, this is a big difference. The polygraph occurred when no doubt the client was claiming he was innocent to his lawyer Clinton. Clients do that…insist insist and insist innocence. He took polygraph and passed. He then later pleaded guilty and admitted his guilt …to his lawyer Clinton and then in court at the plea…..hence the polygraph remark by Clinton.
Facts matter. I don’t care whether someone supports Governor Walker or Secretary Clinton — but at least we owe it to them (and to everyone) to do our best at getting the facts and not just repeating what we ourselves have read from others in the media. And then those facts need to be put in a fair and proper context. When you can go to the original or primary source, you should.