In a recent comment Hilary Clinton complained about the lack of proper investigative journalism being practiced today. She said:
The press is missing in action, with all due respect. Where are the investigative reporters today? Why aren't they asking the hard questions? It's shocking when you see how easily they fold in the media today. They don't stand their ground. If they're criticized by the White House, they just fall apart. I mean, come on, toughen up, guys, it's only our Constitution and country at stake. Let's get some spine.'"
Tim Russert asked David Broder of the Washington Post about this on Sunday's
Meet The Press:
MR. RUSSERT: David Broder, the press corps--was it more tenacious during Watergate, more tenacious against Bill Clinton, or is it people seeing things through their ideological prism--that when you're going after Clinton it's good, going against Bush bad, and vice versa?MR. BRODER: The shortsightedness of Mrs. Clinton's complaint is illustrated by this morning's Washington Post. The front-page story on another memo, this one to Tony Blair's government, about the lack of planning in our government for the postwar period in Iraq. Who does she think is doing this work if not investigative reporters? Give us a break.
He makes a good point. The Downing Street memo is a great example of how investigative reporting is still helping us discover how we are being lied to, as Kevin Drum discusses
here. The Downing Street memo can't be used as proof of how the legacy of Woodward and Bernstein is being kept alive at the Washington Post though. It was discovered by Michael Smith of the London Times. All the investigating that was done this side of the atlantic involved going online and then heading to this site:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/