Our country needs a history lesson about Watergate, and reporting.
If you go back and watch the movie All The President's Men, there is a meeting of the editorial board of the Washington Post. And, one of the editors tells Woodstein (Pet name for the team of Woodward and Bernstein) that almost none of the other newspapers are using any of the Watergate-related stories produced by the Washington Post.
Back then, the media would not use stories about a sitting president (Nixon), even though there was ample evidence of his involvement in a criminal act.
Now, the media splashes headlines and front page stories in mass quantities about Trump's involvement with Russia, though Clapper has said investigators have never found any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia (after a half year of looking).
Big difference between Nixon and Trump that (you would expect) reporters for the networks would see. But, they don't.
CNN gets around the issue by using headlines like: "Collusion Cannot Be Ruled Out". But researchers tell you that not being able to "rule out" a theory has very little to do about whether the theory is true. I am beginning to wonder about the I.Q.'s of modern reporters.
Check out the first sentence of today's story from CNN:
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told MSNBC'S Andrea Mitchell on Friday that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.
Did you get it: ....."there could be evidence"......
I guess you could go back and say....There could be evidence that Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate coverup. But, you would be wrong.
I'm in favor of Freedom of the Press, but our schools need to do a better job of educating reporters.