Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

That is the way it's supposed to work in this country, but given the fallout that's happened in light of the findings of the Mitchell Report investigating the usage of steroids and other substances in Major League Baseball, you would hardly think that's how it is.

Witness the case of Roger Clemens. A story came out in the once respected, and now highly tabloidian (is that a word?) Los Angeles Times in October of 2006 regarding an affidavit in which several Major League Baseball players were accused of using performance-enhancing drugs. The Times reported that Clemens name was on that list of players. Yesterday, it was revealed that Clemens name did not appear in the document as was previously reported by the Times.

As those of us here in Los Angeles know, you can't believe everything you read in the Times today - particularly the sports section. It's much like reading the New York Times or the Washington Post. An alamring number of the columns have a definite bias to the left of center, and a similarly alarming number of the stories found in these three "newspapers" have later been proven to be untrue. Seriously, Bill O'Reilly could probably write a book on all of the inaccuracies and false stories these three "newspapers" have reported the past few years.

My point is that you can't believe everything you read, and if it's in a source that's not going to give you a fair and balanced viewpoint, it's best to check out that information with another source first. Innocent until proven guilty? I sure hope people here still believe that. Let's let things play out before we start convicting everyone on that Mitchell Report. Can the sources be believed? Let's look further into this aspect, OK?

-----