Actually, Bill was coming down on Obama for some of his actions. I guess you don't follow him much?
I would argue that your "qualified" sources aren't much better. What makes them qualified? The fact that they have been around longer? Have a reputation? Have a bigger budget? I have yet to find a news source that hasn't totally botched the coverage of something at some point. Can you name me one?
I mean hell, most TV news broadcasts can't even get the weather right.......
So let me ask you:
If Bill is "wrong" in your eyes, and he has the same people on as the "big news agencies", so why is he automatically wrong or inaccurate and the other agencies "right"?
For eg: Fox had the General who was previously in charge of the coalition forces and Bill had him on, so why do you assume that what this general said on Bill's show was inaccurate and accurate on what he said on Fox?
I'll let you in on a secret: He isn't inaccurate, he just doesn't partake in the propaganda that all other (or most other) sources abide by......