In a Nov. 20 CNSNews.com review of Brent Bozell and Tim Graham's anti-Hillary book (hint: he likes it), Bob Zelnick writes (emphasis added):
Most journalists who sought to investigate the Clintons' alleged improprieties in Little Rock or Washington came away with lots of suspicious behavior but no smoking guns. The Clintons, of course, stonewalled those hot on the trail of impropriety, as did their closest associates. Even so massive an effort as that undertaken by the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal yielded a disappointing harvest of conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. Investigations headed by special prosecutors proved no more productive. From Whitewater to Travelgate, the Feds quietly gave up one ghost after another. Not a single indictment was returned against either Clinton in any case. Impeachment produced a division along partisan rather than evidentiary lines.
That can be read as saying that Zelnick was rooting for an indictment and was disappointed that the Clintons weren't indicted on anything, even though there was no "conclusive evidence of wrongdoing." If so, that seems to contradict Bozell and Graham's thesis that the media is monolithcally liberal on the subject of the Clintons; after all, Zelnick worked for ABC News for 21 years, notably coving national political and congressional affairs from 1994 to 1998, during the Clinton administration.
Given that one of the cornerstone beliefs among conservatives is that because many journalists hold liberal beliefs, those beliefs are reflected in their reporting -- Zelnick himself admits as much, praising the MRC for "provid[ing] me with ammunition for verbal repartee with my cherished liberal students and faculty friends" -- doesn't this also mean that Zelnick's conservative views were reflected in his reporting for ABC? If so, Zelnick -- and Bozell and Graham -- should admit as much, that conservative reporters are just as biased as they accuse liberal reporters of being.