The first round of stories about Clarke seem to be Bush's response, rather than Clarke's allegations.
Cnn.com runs
this story with line on their front page: "Bush team rejects 9/11 allegations." The story starts with Rice's response. Keep in mind, for somebody who only gets news from cnn.com, this is their introduction to the charges.
Currently MSNBC has NOTHING on their front page that even mentions Clarke, his book, or the 60 minutes appearance. Earlier today they ran a headline to the effect of "Whitehouse strongly rebuts Clarke criticism." Now on their second-tier "news" page they have White House blasts terror critic. Again, this is the original point of view for the story. Their first article on this story is the Bush team's rebuttal.
Slate has a great service called Today's Papers, where they run down what's in the big hardcopy newspapers. The death of Yassin bumped Clarke off of the WaPost's lead (still made the front page). Everyone else buried Clarke off the front page. How much do you want to bet tomorrow NYT, LAT, and others front-page Bush's rebuttal to Clarke?
The Daily Howler has a typically grand rant against the NYT here. Like everyone else, the NYT article gives Bushco a few paragraphs to blast Clarke's credibility before actually stating the charges.
When did the media learn to frame everything starting from conservative principals? How did we get here? Is there anything we can do to fix it? Do we have a shot at winning with less money and the mainstream media unwilling tell our side of the story?