Yes. I think what is the most confusing about the made-up "scandal", is the administration's rather bumbling explanations. All the had to do was keep repeating the "16 words" and say that the CIA wasn't able to independently verify the information but British intel was sure enough of their source that the administration deemed it important enough to be included in a State of the Union address. Enough said. The explanations have, in a way, made it worse.
But your point is well taken - if people would read for themselves and analyze what they've read, the could reach their own conclusions without being led by the media. Of course, that assumes that the liberal filter is appropriate quoting adminsitration officials, something we both know happens quite rarely. The new DNC ad, for example, doesn't mention the words "British intelligence". It's all misleading for people who don't take the time to read carefully themselves.
Rather than relying on the mediot's filters, I get my news about what the administration said directly from www.whitehouse.gov - nothing magical about this - the majority of Americans can now do the same.
I just reposted my comment to you at the thread of on the J.Farah column about "the uranium flap" put on FR today.