On the November 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III said to co-host Sean Hannity, regarding his book Whitewash: What the Media Won't Tell You About Hillary Clinton, but Conservatives Will (Crown Forum, November 2007): "[W]ell, we've looked at every single story on [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] going back to 1992. And you look at it and you isolate it, and you see what the American people were told, which was just a one-way street, where every time a scandal came out, there was an immediate wall thrown up by the media blocking it from the American people." Bozell continued: "[W]e knew that she was in the middle of things. We knew that she was behind the whole FBI-gates." Bozell then asked, “What were they doing with 338 FBI files of Republicans that she was in charge of?” However, as Media Matters for America documented, in March 2000, Robert Ray, the third and final counsel assigned to investigate the Clintons, determined that, with regard to members of the Clinton White House having obtained confidential FBI files, "[T]here was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from the administrations of President Bush and President Reagan.''

According to the findings in Ray's report, “The Independent Counsel has concluded his investigation and determined that no indictments should be brought in this matter.” From Ray's report:

The Independent Counsel concluded that neither [former White House security worker] Anthony Marceca nor any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, engaged in criminal conduct to obtain through fraudulent means derogatory information about former White House staff. The possibility that such officials might have engaged in such criminal conduct was the principal investigative issue that resulted in the appointment of an independent counsel with respect to this matter.

[...]

Finally, the Independent Counsel concluded that although portions of Mr. Marceca's testimony before Congress were false and misleading, his testimony regarding the central issue that necessitated the appointment of an independent counsel was, on this point, truthful: No senior White House official, or Mrs. Clinton, was involved in requesting FBI background reports for improper partisan advantage.

Ray's report further stated:

The Independent Counsel has, however, concluded that the allegations giving rise to this Office's investigation of the matter were not substantiated by the evidence. No reasonable ground exists for concluding that any senior White House official or Mrs. Clinton was involved in Mr. Marceca's actions in obtaining the background files.

Also during the show, Bozell asserted: “You know what was shocking this week, in the last 10 days? It was shocking, was to see the media finally, after 15 years -- finally, one week of negative press on Hillary. When was the last time you saw this?” Co-host Alan Colmes later asked: “Remember Whitewater? ... It was broken by The New York Times and The Washington Post, the so-called liberal media,” to which Bozell replied: “They defended her.” Bozell did not explain how the Times and the Post “defended” Clinton during Whitewater. As Media Matters has documented, in a January 5, 1994, editorial, the Post called for a special counsel to investigate the Clintons even while acknowledging that “there has been no credible charge in this case that either the president or Mrs. Clinton did anything wrong.” From the editorial:

The administration has taken the position that there's no need to name an independent counsel in the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan case. It argues that the investigation is safely in the hands of career Justice Department attorneys, that the president and Mrs. Clinton are cooperating fully even though not directly involved and that the attorney general has no current power to appoint a fully independent counsel anyway.

We think that's wrong -- that, murky though most aspects of this case still are, it represents precisely the kind of case in which an independent counsel ought to be appointed. We say that even though -- and this should be stressed -- there has been no credible charge in this case that either the president or Mrs. Clinton did anything wrong. Nevertheless, it is in the public interest -- and in the president's as well -- to put the inquiry in independent hands.

[...]

There is no way even under the best of circumstances, which don't exist here, that a Justice Department in any administration can conduct a credible investigation involving a president to whom it is ultimately responsible. That's what's at issue in this matter -- and why an independent figure should be named.

Further, as Media Matters also documented, in his book, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Knopf, June 2007), Carl Bernstein faults the media -- specifically The New York Times and The Washington Post -- for their reporting on the Whitewater controversy, which he writes was based on “assumptions” and “assertions” that “were often contextually misleading, exaggerated in significance, and sometimes factually off-base.” From A Woman in Charge:

Later, the Clintons, seared and scarred by the press and opposition party for their own ethical lapses, complained bitterly that from their first days in office they had been singled out and judged by harsher standards than any of their predecessors, and victimized by a consortium of enemies and an overzealous press. There is little question that they were treated more harshly, and often pursued with different standards and more relentlessly -- during virtually the whole of their occupancy of the White House -- than any president and his wife of the twentieth century. Moreover, the underlying assumptions of some of the basic charges and assertions that fueled the unceasing investigation -- most notably those related to the so-called Whitewater matter, beginning with a series of stories in the New York Times and others covering similar ground in the Washington Post -- were often contextually misleading, exaggerated in significance, and sometimes factually off-base [Page 233].

Bozell similarly asserted on the November 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends that after examining coverage of Clinton, he and Whitewash co-author Tim Graham concluded that “since 1992, the media have been her [Clinton's] cheerleaders.” He continued: “Every single time she's gotten into trouble, they throw up a big wall between her and the American people, the American people don't learn the truth about her, she continues doing what she's been doing, and to this day, you're seeing that same pattern.”

From the November 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: We've been spending most of the night here -- first of all, I'm very honored, because I was -- I'm a part of your brand-new book here. You interviewed Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, myself.

COLMES: Sorry I couldn't make it.

HANNITY: The Great One, Mark Levin.

BOZELL: Yah, tried to get you.

HANNITY: You know, Newt Gingrich. You interviewed a lot of us here. You were able to weave together a story about Hillary that the media won't tell. Now, I agree with what Newt said, and I've been saying it every day, both on radio and TV, positive message, but this other side needs to be told, as well, if the Republicans plan on winning.

BOZELL: Well, I think, you know, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, conservative or a liberal, I think you not only have the right, but you have the responsibility to know what's going on. You know, we spent eight years in the Clinton administration with even liberals saying that this was the most corrupt administration in history, and people are scratching their heads and saying, “How is it that they're back?”

Well, we've looked at every single story on Hillary Clinton going back to 1992. And you look at it and you isolate it, and you see what the American people were told, which was just a one-way street, where every time a scandal came out, there was an immediate wall thrown up by the media blocking it from the American people.

HANNITY: All right, but this is what is amazing about -- this book is so timely in light of the fact she wouldn't answer a simple question, and this is on a series of issues. She's not had to answer any real tough questions. Does she get to go through the whole campaign like this?

BOZELL: That's why -- well, that's why any time a conservative -- and you're going to do it to me.

HANNITY: And not staging questions --

BOZELL: Every time a conservative raises a question about Hillary, “It's old news. We've gone through it. Do we have to go through it again?” Look, the point is there are real issues, real scandals, real controversies, and we've never really gotten an answer.

HANNITY: And now she's staging questions.

BOZELL: And now we know -- and we know -- we knew that she was in the middle of things. We knew that she was behind the whole FBI-gates --

HANNITY: Release the archives.

BOZELL: Well, this has been secrecy that goes on back to -- back to the 1980s. They don't tell the truth. What were they doing with 338 FBI files of Republicans that she was in charge of?

HANNITY: All right. What are the top questions you think that she needs to answer? And do you really think that for the rest of her campaign -- you quoted me in this book, and I stand by this today -- that the number one campaign contribution she'll get in this election cycle is from the left-wing media, the MoveOn.org media.

BOZELL: Absolutely, because just taking away all the scandals, just looking at the policies, when you see her consistently labeled as a moderate and a centrist -- Time magazine this week called her a moral conservative.

HANNITY: Yeah.

COLMES: She is.

BOZELL: And you see her voting record --

COLMES: Let me ask you a question about --

BOZELL: Just look at her voting record, Alan. It's not the same.

COLMES: Just let me ask you this: Are you going to vote for her?

BOZELL: Yeah, sure, Alan. I think I saw a pig flying across the screen.

COLMES: First of all, let me go to this [Robert] Redford movie.

[...]

COLMES: We don't know the answer to that. It's only been out a week. All right. Hillary Clinton, the Pew Research Center. The tone of the Hillary coverage has been 26.9 percent positive, 35.4 percent neutral, 37.8 percent negative. You love to go on about how she's getting all this positive -- how the press just wants to give her a pass. That's not true. It's certainly not true in talk radio, not true in cable news.

BOZELL: I don't believe those numbers at all.

COLMES: Of course you don't. It doesn't comport with your point of view. Just like you decide this movie hates America.

BOZELL: You know what was shocking this week, in the last 10 days? It was shocking, was to see the media finally, after 15 years -- finally, one week of negative press on Hillary. When was the last time you saw this?

COLMES: You don't want to believe numbers you don't agree with, but if these numbers comported with your point of view, you'd be heralding them. You'd come in with headlines.

BOZELL: OK. Alan, Alan. OK, Alan. Answer me this question. When was the last time you saw two consecutive days --not one week -- two consecutive days of negative coverage on Hillary Clinton?

COLMES: Yesterday and today.

BOZELL: No, no. Before this week. Before this week. I'm saying in the last 15 years. That's what this book says.

COLMES: Remember Whitewater?

BOZELL: Negative on Hillary?

COLMES: It was broken by The New York Times and The Washington Post, the so-called liberal media.

BOZELL: Negative on Hillary?

COLMES: You've got to be kidding me.

BOZELL: They defended her.

COLMES: Nice seeing you. Thanks for being here.

HANNITY: By the way, I love the book. You should read the part where he interviewed me.

BOZELL: Read it and learn.

COLMES: Yeah, thanks for coming to get a liberal point of view in that book. I appreciate it.

From the November 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

BOZELL: Well, you know, what? When we thought of the idea at first, we wondered, “Should we do another book on Hillary Clinton?” Then we isolated the media coverage of Hillary alone, and it was astounding. My colleague Tim Graham and I looked at this and we said, “This is a pattern, where, since 1992, the media have been her cheerleaders.” Every single time she's gotten into trouble, they throw up a big wall between her and the American people, the American people don't learn the truth about her, she continues doing what she's been doing, and to this day, you're seeing that same pattern. Look at the Norman Hsu scandal that we just went through.

CARLSON: The bundling campaign-donation scandal.

BOZELL: Here is, as Bob Tyrell calls it, the chop suey connection. Here's another Asian fundraiser who's sneaking money. The L.A. Times just broke a story about Chinatown money coming to Hillary, and no one knows where these donors are. This is a continuation of that, but the networks -- ABC, NBC, CNN primarily -- simply will not report it. And the media as a whole will not get to the bottom of these stories. If someone writes a story, no one ever gets to the resolution phase to find out exactly what happened.