Is Adrianne DeWeese supposed to check out the facts on the stories she writes???

Cleaver's views are his own, and because he is a public official, it is the responsibility of a reporter to hold him accountable and report his views. Please notice that I attributed his statements to him.
Now, about the Troubled Assets Relief Program. It's tricky, and yes, I have done my research on it, though I am certainly no expert. Part of Cleaver's comments came because there are inconsistencies among news media on what the "bank bailout" actually constituted. (I did not see Sunday's "Meet the Press" report, so I will not comment on it.)
The Emergency Stablization Act of 2008 allowed the U.S. treasury department (lead by then-secretary of treasury Henry Paulson) to purchase the coined "toxic assets" and restore confidence in the stock market. The Troubled Assets Relief Program was voted on and approved by Congress. In Cleaver's statements, he claimed that neither the House nor the Senate had approved to "bail out the banks" as of Friday morning. That language, he says, was not present in the TARP bill that they voted on.
Part of being a reporter is doing the best job possible in constructing "the truth." However, as a sociologist, I also believe that there isn't always one truth. Two people could watch a car accident occur, and then provide completely separate accounts of what "really happened."
That's what I was doing on Friday: reporting the truth that Rep. Cleaver has seen and experienced as a Congressman. Do I believe everything that every source tells me? Of course not. Do I believe when a Congressman says that he didn't vote for certain language that is commonly used in media today regarding the bank bailouts? Yes, I believe it when he says that he voted for certain verbage and that Henry Paulson injected his own actions. Will I get a chance to interview Paulson soon and receive his end of the story? No, but I can keep dreaming and I would drop everything I was doing for just a five-minute interview with him.
I appreciate your critical eye, mminnoe, because that's exactly what you should do when you watch TV reports and read articles like mine. Think about "the truths" that certain sources are presenting in one arena and look at the truths of others. For what it's worth, I never just print what someone says; if that were the case, I'd just hand Rep. Cleaver or whomever my notebook and say, "Please write the story for me." I listen with a critical ear. I read "The New York Times" daily because I believe it has the best national political and economic coverage. When legislators – state and federal – come into Eastern Jackson County, I do the best I can to take complicated issues of the day and make them relevant and easy-to-understand for readers. Thanks again for your comments.

I believe what Cleaver said was that the TARP funds were voted to be used to buy up "toxic assets". When Paulson decided that wouldn't work he changed directions and purchased preferred stock in the banks. The bill was so poorly fashioned that congress lost all control over how the funds were to be used, so instead of blaming themselves for a poor bill, they would rather blame Paulson for improperly using the funds. Geithner, like Paulson seems to consider purchase of the toxic assets too risky and is is following Paulson's lead with the bank bailout program. If congress doesn't like it, they can stop it.
 Also, if the "bail out" was not what congress wished, they now have an opportunity to rectify it in that most of the banks that received the bailout want to return the money, but the government will not accept it. Also, word today is that the government is considering converting their preferred stock holdings to common shares, as they did with CitiGroup. This would give the government voting control of all the major financial institutions. Some are terming that "back door nationalization"