Apparently, the nonFox media is finally starting to cover the Benghazi affair. It occupied a major portion of last Sunday's Face the Nation show on CBS. Until recently I had seen it only on Fox.
Oct 21 I said here: "I believe the President was concerned that the terrorist attack on Benghazi would be seen a harbinger of the collapse of his middle eastern foreign policy. That is why for two weeks his administration conducted a media campaign to convince us that it was a demonstration that got out of hand and not an organized activity."
In the comments there it was noted that: "... the response by the administration was the standard damage control that we see from our institutions from time to time when events threaten to damage their brand." That is, of course, frequently true. That is why we need a independent media. That brings us to the real and double tragedy here. Our mainline media will not only not cover this important story, it assures us that those who do cover it are unreliable. The majority of our media apparently sees its role as supporting the administration's (mis?)representation of those events.
Recall how the media handled Bush's claims about African yellowcake? I have a friend who went on interminably about how the Bush people "outed a CIA agent" (Valerie Plame, author of the subsequent book - Fair Game). That friend has not been at all concerned about the idea that perhaps this administration left an ambassador (Chris Stevens) and others out to die. I told her that, contrary to Obama's claims, the Libyan President said (in September) that it was clearly a preplanned attack and she asked, "Libya has a President?"
I would argue that the blame for my friend's indifference lies not with her, but with the media and its selective reporting.
By way of comparison the reader should note that Ambassador Stevens will not be writing a book about the treatment that he received from his administration.
Recall how the media handled Bush's claims about African yellowcake? I have a friend who went on interminably about how the Bush people "outed a CIA agent" (Valerie Plame, author of the subsequent book - Fair Game). That friend has not been at all concerned about the idea that perhaps this administration left an ambassador (Chris Stevens) and others out to die. I told her that, contrary to Obama's claims, the Libyan President said (in September) that it was clearly a preplanned attack and she asked, "Libya has a President?"
I would argue that the blame for my friend's indifference lies not with her, but with the media and its selective reporting.
By way of comparison the reader should note that Ambassador Stevens will not be writing a book about the treatment that he received from his administration.
The non-Fox media is reporting on Benghazi. Much of the commentary is couched behind comments such as “Republicans claim” but they are reporting and I would suggest that the additional coverage is due in large part to the efforts of Steve Hayes (The Weekly Standard). Thanks Steve.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I appreciate that the story is now being covered by the mainstream media my prediction is that the coverage will dwindle rapidly. The individual that stands to lose the most (I think Obama is bullet proof) is Hillary; the head of State at the time of the event and the leading candidate for President in 2016.
There is an interesting possibility here that the White House will throw “State” under the bus to protect themselves. If that happens I sincerely doubt that the Clintons will take one for the team.