Faulty Journalism A Scandal In Itself Thick Irony Media Are Doing A Number On Their Supposed Favorite.

In the movie, “All The President’s Men,” Washington Post managing editor Ben Bradlee, played by Jason Robards, would refuse to publish stories on Watergate until all the facts had been confirmed by at least two sources. Innuendo and hearsay were excised. Bradlee had no trouble telling reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward that “you don’t have it yet.”

But that was a long time ago. Today, it’s much easier to attack the president. Bradlee’s annoying insistence on adequate sourcing is gone and innuendo appears between the lines of too many stories.

Did someone say there are some forms of sex that Clinton doesn’t think are adultery? Did someone say the president bought Monica Lewinsky a dress? Did someone say Clinton is ready to resign? All of these allegations have been widely reported. Few have been confirmed. None have been proven.

Finally, the worst happened. A major break in the story - that there was an eyewitness to an intimate encounter - had to be retracted by the newspaper that broke the news. Why? Because the single, anonymous source for the story later said the information was inaccurate.

It’s a thick irony that the so-called liberal media would inflict such damage on the person they supposedly protect.

But the damage was done. Other media picked up the story and it spun out of control.

Reputable television magazines made the story the centerpiece of their programs. Highly critical analysis based on false information was broadcast to millions of homes. It is news pollution.

Which raises the issue of whether news organizations, such as The Spokesman-Review, should report information they can’t prove themselves. If they shouldn’t, news couldn’t travel. It would stop with the originating source and the public would be less informed.

So, the news business depends on original reporting of the quality Ben Bradlee demanded during the Watergate investigation. We’re not getting that today.

Some are willing to accept the shoddy reporting as a payback for media oversights with respect to Clinton’s character flaws. Such are the pliable ethics of those who think along these lines.

The standards of journalism on this story have become so loose, and the competitive pressure so intense, that we are running the risk of ruining a president with bad journalism.

, DataTimes MEMO: For opposing view, see “Media suffering from lack of practice at this”

The following fields overflowed: SUPCAT = COLUMN, EDITORIAL - From both sides CREDIT = Scott Sines/For the editorial board