Posted by: edgarvasiliu | July 18, 2009

Unfair Question to Clinton? Could it be Media Bias?

Here Chris Wallace of Fox News essentially asks Clinton why he didn’t do more to get bin Laden/al-Qaeda. The reason why this potentially demonstrates media bias is because of the assumption that he didn’t do enough as President. Clinton admits that as President he did make mistakes but as he clearly articulates he was quite proactive in pursuing bin Laden. If the Clinton administration was serious in counter-terrorism and it was more a question of limiting circumstances why is Wallace implying that Clinton didn’t do enough as opposed to what would he do differently? Also, Clinton adds that it was Bush that dropped the ball for several reasons that he lists. So why is Wallace so critical of Clinton then if he acted more rightly than President Bush? Wallace also mentions the conflict in Somalia that President Clinton was involved in but again there seems to be gross misinformation as Clinton argues that there was no direct connection between bin Laden and that conflict. Wallace as a report is being quite dubious. Is it intentional or unintentional? Is this evidence of media bias against Clinton? Maybe if not probably.

Part 1 (It gets heated in the middle)

Part 2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: