Twisting the facts in Barr questioning

I awaited with great anticipation the grilling of Attorney General Barr on May 1. Indeed, it was political theater that did not disappoint. Each of you, readers, and yes, Daily Herald editorialists, assuredly backed into your respective corners. I for one sat with an open mind willing to give each side an opportunity to make their case on the definitive, final analysis of Special Counsel Bob Mueller.

I won't regurgitate any of the deft questioning and repartee of the Judiciary Committee members. Clearly, it was partisan.

What stood out for me was the one exchange regarding the 30 hours of testimony of Don McGahn, the POTUS's White House Counsel. Specifically, the issue of whether the President sought to have Mueller fired via Trump's Counsel. The exchange described centered on Mueller's perceived conflicts of interest. Period. Yet, it was wrongly reported by the media (editor's take note) that the POTUS asked Mr. McGahn to "FIRE" Mueller. Not true. I'd want the fabrication corrected as well.

Here we have a situation of the NYT twisting an event and using the inflammatory word "fire". Invariably, in printed news journalism words have meaning. Gone are the days of reporting the 5-W's, the "Who, What, Where, When and Why".

The Daily Herald has decried the "assault" on the free press when it's criticized as "the enemy of people". But that is exactly what they tend to be. When words are used to twist or slant a story as did the media in the example cited above, the public is done a disservice. Print journalism needs to be held to a higher standard.

Furthermore, the concocted narrative that Barr's initial summary of principle conclusions was at odds with Muellers report is ludicrous. Mueller was given the opportunity to review and critique Barr's statement but Mueller abdicated his judicious authority. Maybe this whole charade was the infamous "insurance policy" famously tweeted by the FBI's Peter Strzok.

Bill Anderson

Schaumburg