NYTimes: Smell This

Repeatedly, the mainstream media clamor that professional journalists are indispensable since news stories must be placed in the proper context. They assert that only professional journalists can adequately perform in-depth research and reporting to allow readers to acquire the fundamental information needed to form an objective opinion.

With that in mind, yesterday's New York Times contains an article by three erudite professionals which describes the furor over the Bush administration's dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys. Now, as I understand, there are 93 U.S. Attorneys which represent the federal government in the prosecution of cases in U.S. District Courts. They are appointed by the President and serve at his pleasure. Therefore, they can be dismissed for any reason and no explanation is required.

For some reason, the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys has upset Congressional Democrats. As a result, hearings are scheduled for this week to explore charges that the firings were a political purge. For Democrats to raise a stink about the issue is to be expected, as is action by the Times to magnify the stink and make sure it wafts globally.

But, while wafting, the Times fails in its in-depth research and reporting to make any mention that President Clinton fired all U.S. Attorneys in 1993, a mere two months after being inaugurated. That's right, Clinton, via his freshly appointed Attorney General, Janet Reno, fired 93 U.S. Attorneys. I don't recall any investigations nor media firestorm.

Yet the indispensable professional journalists of the Times, providing in-depth research and reporting and context, fail to even hint in the cited article that Clinton preceded Bush in firing U.S. Attorneys, and to a much greater degree.

In summary, there's stink all right but it doesn't have anything to do with the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys.