Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post responds to left-wing blowback against the upcoming book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich by three-time New York Times bestselling investigative journalist (and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large) Peter Schweizer. Cillizza tackles the objection that mainstream media outlets like the New York Times should not cover the book or follow up on its leads:
[I]t’s not just the Clinton campaign that’s unhappy with the deal made by the Times, Post and Fox News. It’s “some reporters” too.
Here’s what I say to all of them: OF COURSE we should be examining the claims made in Schweizer’s book. Come on!
The most foundational principle of covering a presidential campaign (or anything, really) is trying your damnedest to give people the fullest possible picture of the candidates running to represent them. The more information you have at your disposal then, the better.
…
Is Schweizer any less credible than the National Enquirer? Many reporters turned their noses up when the Enquirer reported about John Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter during the 2008 presidential campaign. Turns out that the Enquirer had it right — and we were all forced to follow their reporting.
Does that mean that the Enquirer is often right in what they report about politics (or anything else)? No. In fact, not even close. But checking tips, leads and allegations out is what we do. Simply because Schweizer has ties to conservatives and/or let some of the Republican candidates look at the book before it publishes doesn’t make the information contained within it any more right or wrong.
Read the rest of the article here.