The worst kind of bias is the bias of omission. And that was never more on display than after reports surfaced earlier this week alleging former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice's had unmasked Trump transition team members.
So why is this a big story that deserves attention? Simply put, one of the highest-ranking members of the previous administration unmasked names of members of the incoming administration via classified intelligence reports, prompting many questions that warrant dogged journalism:
Who leaked the information to newspapers like The Washington Post?
Who, if anyone, ordered Rice to unmask the names of private U.S. citizens in the first place?
Was the ultimate objective of spying and exposing Trump associates for political purposes or for national security reasons?
And why did Rice lie when originally asked about an announcement by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that Trump and some transition team members were incidentally swept up in surveillance?
To review what happened to prompt the last question above, here's how Rice answered a question around the Nunes revelation when asked by "PBS NewsHour" host Judy Woodruff on March 22.
Rice: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.".....
Now if I'm host Andrea Mitchell or one of her producers, the first soundbite I cue up is Rice on PBS denying any knowledge that she knew “nothing about” surveillance allegations. It's a simple but highly effective interviewing technique perfected by the late Tim Russert of NBC "Meet the Press" fame: Play the interviewee's own words back to them and ask them to explain themselves if those words appear to be a lie.
Mitchell and team don't bother doing so.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...