Replies

That's a really good question about why more conservative journalists did not investigate the Foster murder and other Clinton crimes. I'm sure there are many reasons for their lack of action on this case. One good possibility is that while about 15% of mainstream journalists are Republicans, it seems like there are just a few conservative mainstream media outlets--perhaps 5% of the total. I can only think of two offhand: the Washington Times and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. So it's likely that some of the conservative journalists were blocked from investigating the Foster murder by executives in their organization who believed that reporting on this story would make their publication look like a "right-wing" publication. Part of the problem also may be that conservative reporters didn't jump on the Foster story quickly enough and that gave the Clintons too much time to destroy evidence and spin the story to create a public perception that Foster committed suicide.

If you recall the Watergate scandal, the news media jumped all over that story right from the beginning and worked furiously to generate the perception among the public that Nixon's men had comitted major crimes. I think also the Clintons were much more willing (than Nixon) to use any and all forms of executive power to squelch a real investigation into Foster's death. When you're part of a small minority among journalists, it's also difficult to attack the White House without rock-solid damning evidence (such as a confession by a hit man), but instead with mountains of circumstantial evidence. I think that's also what stopped Ken Starr from more agressive questioning of the Foster suicide theory. And finally you have item #3 from my earlier post: major fear among journalists of retaliation of all kinds (including violence) by the Clintons. These are my leading theories for why conservative mainstream journalists didn't publish more investigative articles about the Clintons. I'm sure there are some other reasons.