I knew it the moment yesterday’s testimony from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch came on the TV — the North County Times would lead with this story this morning. You know, on the right side of the page, big bold headline … in that spot reserved each day for whatever (and we really mean whatever) negative news surfaces about the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. To my surprise, though, was that the Union-Tribune ran with it too (UPDATE: The NCT does put its front pages up. Thanx, M@tt.).

You, my two loyal readers, are probably sick of me ranting about the media making something out of nothing, but this story — and the hype its getting — cannot go without another rant.

First, let’s get to the facts of the story. Military cover-up of Tillman’s death? Embellishing the facts about Lynch? Not hardly.

In the case of Tillman, the Ranger says he was “ordered not to” talk about the incident right after it happened. OK, fair enough. But once you make your way across the puddle of drool left by Henry Waxman & Co., the story’s not that simple. The Army, specifically the Ranger’s superior, says he gave the order so Tillman’s family could be officially notified and not hear misreporting from the media (imagine that).

Turns out, the initial information about Tillman’s tragic death being caused by enemy fire was false — he was killed by U.S. troops assuming they were firing on the enemy. That’s unfortunate, but is this a cover-up?

No. C’mon. Once the Army was finished investigating the incident, it released the information publicly. That’s right, and it came out a mere month after Tillman died. Hardly a conspiracy to hide what happened. If there’s any conspiracy here, it stems from a lazy media eager to exploit Tillman’s story and somehow put him on a higher plane than the other men and women who have died in these wars.

This reminds of the supposed Abu Ghraib cover-up. You know, when the military held a press conference to come clean in January, no reporters bothered to show up, and then “broke” the story three months later?

It never ceases to amaze me that the left continually calls those in the Bush administration stupid and ignorant while also accusing them of overly elaborate conspiracies and cover-ups.

In the case of Lynch, she says the military overplayed her heroism, lying, even, about what happened. She says the American people don’t need to be told whom to hail as heroes, they can figure that out themselves. Again, it’s not surprising that the military might want to publicize its extraordinary service members.

Lynch’s testimony, though, begs the question: Does she need to be told who’s a hero? She was released with a Bronze Star. If she’s no hero, and the story was a lie, why did she accept it? Will she give it back?

Second, and what really bothers me today, is that the media just ran with this non-story. Was there a hearing? Yes. Was this testimony given? Yes. Does that mean reporters, editors, publishers, etc. should just print and broadcast it?

Whatever happened to checking someone’s facts before running with what they tell you? Even making sure the other side is well represented? Folks can say anything in a public hearing. That doesn’t make it fact nor does that make it news. YOU STILL SHOULD CHECK IT. Shoot, even question why the hearing is being held in the first place.

Reporters in Coastal North County should understand this well. There’s a reason the rantings of the man who calls himself “Police Watch” and shows up at council meetings in Oceanside, Carlsbad and Encinitas don’t make their way into the paper — the guy’s not credible; he doesn’t present a strong case.

Sure, let’s print what happened at the hearing, but it doesn’t deserve this kind of play. I’m with Bill Otis: the media is playing into Congress’ venal attempt to use a tragic incident for political ends.