Fox News pushed back on reports on Monday that there was an “exclusive arrangement” with conservative writer Peter Schweizer to pursue reporting based on his research into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton.
In a piece on Sunday The New York Times said it, The Washington Post, and Fox News had “exclusive agreements” with Schweizer to “pursue story lines in the book. In a statement to TPM, Fox denied any type of exclusive deal.
Here’s the statement from Fox News executive vice president Michael Clemente:
We have secured the television exclusive to report on the forthcoming book, Clinton Cash, as all major news outlets have done for decades with a multitude of books. There is no exclusive arrangement to ‘pursue story lines’ — we have conducted our own independent research and reporting on the contents of the book. This was the same process we used in securing an advance copy of 13 Hours and Things That Matter, which were both the subject of one-hour FOX News documentaries.
In an email to TPM, NYT Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan said “We had access to some material in the book, but we wanted to do our own reporting.”
Are these statements by Fox and the NY Times just another variant of “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”?
TRANSLATION:
“We’re reporters, dammit! No, really!”
Peter Schweizer, Sarah Palin’s foreign policy adviser.
It also occurs to me that if and when the “NY Times and Friends” publishes material gleaned from Schweizer’s Book, will they also report extensively on any ensuing criticisms of Schweizer based on poor scholarship and shoddy journalism. From his past history and M.O. published by Media Matters, ensuing criticism seems almost certain. Or, will they simple give us a “bygones”, a la Richard Fish in “Ally McBeal”, on the bottom of one of the back pages? I’m betting on the latter.
This could be a huge risk for both the N.Y. Times and the GOP who may be only looking at the upside of what amounts to a journalistic “Pascal’s Wager”; the chance, however slim of a journalistic coup; and ignoring the downside; that the book and it’s component materials are fatally flawed and that, irrespective of merit, it all comes off, anyway, as just another election year attack on Hillary Clinton, a woman struggling to burst through the political glass ceiling, by a crazed, GOP think tank wanker and a stenographic press.