Over my career, I’ve tended to resist press bashing. Part of the reason for that may be that there are plenty of journalists whose work I respect and whom I’ve come to admire. But I must say that the way the press as an institution covered the 2012 presidential election was in many respects depressing—and in some respects its biases have rarely been more fully on display.
There are a dozen examples I could cite, but let me simply focus on one: The September 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. We witnessed a massive failure at three different stages. The first is that the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and others asked for additional protection because of their fears of terrorist attacks. Those requests were denied—and Mr. Stevens became the first American ambassador to be murdered in more than 30 years, along with three others. The second failure was not assisting former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty when they were under attack (both were killed). The third failure was that the administration misled the American people about the causes of the attack long after it was clear to many people that their narrative was false.
Yet with a few honorable exceptions—Fox News being the most conspicuous—the press has shown no real appetite for this story. It’s not that it hasn’t been covered; it’s that the coverage has lacked anything like the intensity and passion that you would have seen had this occurred during the presidency of, say, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. I have the advantage of having worked in the Reagan administration during Iran-contra and the Bush White House during the Patrick Fitzgerald leak investigation—and there is simply no comparison when it comes to how the press treated these stories. The juxtaposition with the Fitzgerald investigation is particularly damning to the media. Journalists were obsessed by that story, which turned out to be much ado about nothing—Mr. Fitzgerald decided early on there were no grounds to prosecute Richard Armitage for the leak of Valerie Plame’s name—and obsessed in particular with destroying the life of the very good man who was the architect of George W. Bush’s two presidential victories (thankfully they failed in their effort to knee-cap Karl Rove).
In the Benghazi story, we have four dead Americans. A lack of security that borders on criminal negligence. No apparent effort was made to save the lives of Messrs. Woods and Doherty, despite their pleas. The Obama administration, including the president, gave false and misleading accounts of what happened despite mounting evidence to the contrary. And the person who was wrongly accused of inciting the attacks by making a crude YouTube video is now in prison. Yet the press has, for the most part, treated this story with ambivalence and reluctance. A reliable barometer of the views of the elite media is Tom Friedman of the New York Times, who said on Meet the Press on Sunday, “To me, Libya is not a scandal, it’s a tragedy.”
Here’s the thing, though. If the exact same incidents had occurred in the exact same order, and if it had happened during the watch of a conservative president, it would be a treated as a scandal. An epic one, in fact. The coverage, starting on September 12 and starting with Mr. Friedman’s newspaper, would have been nonstop, ferociously negative, and the pressure put on the president and his administration would have been crushing. Jon Stewart, the moral conscience of an increasing number of journalists, wouldn’t have let this story die.
Yet President Obama avoided all of that. Indeed, it was Mitt Romney who incurred the special wrath of reporters for his criticism of a statement made by the American embassy in Egypt after the building was stormed by an angry mob (a criticism, by that way, that the Obama administration agreed with a few hours after Mr. Romney made it). Most reporters—again, with a few impressive exceptions—treated the Benghazi story with nonchalance.
For some journalists, it’s fairly clear as to why: they had a rooting interest in Mr. Obama winning and they carried a deep dislike, even contempt, for Governor Romney. But for many others I think the explanation is more subtle and in some respects more problematic. They appear to be completely blind to their biases and double standards. If you gave them sodium pentothal, they would say they were being objective. Self-examination, it turns out, is harder than self-justification. And of course being surrounded with people who share and reinforce your presuppositions and worldview doesn’t help matters. (A model for today’s reporters is Richard Harwood, a Washington Post reporter who called his editor in Washington, Ben Bradlee, and asked to be taken off the 1968 Robert Kennedy campaign on the day of the California primary because he sensed he was, in the words of RFK biographer Evan Thomas, losing his “newsman’s reserve and … his objectivity.”)
In general, journalists receive critiques like this with indignation. They enjoy holding up public officials, but not themselves, to intense scrutiny. They insist that their personal biases never bleed into their story selection or coverage. But the outstanding ones and the honest ones would admit, though perhaps only to themselves, that the double standard is real and troubling, that it’s injurious to their profession, and that things really do need to change. Perhaps because they still know why they got into journalism in the first place—not for advocacy but to report the news in a relatively even-handed manner, to “speak truth to power,” regardless of the political views of those in power, and to pursue stories in a way that is fair and unafraid.
Today such an attitude sounds almost quaint.
Great column! Much ,much better than your diatribe about science and rubio…..Hopefully you continue on this path and leave religion otu of it!
We live in a country that is only two steps away from being a banana republic. Most people directly or indirectly get their news from the MSM—and it is similar to Soviet controlled Pravda. Corruption is hidden and political enemies of our postmodernist elites are routinely attacked and destroyed. A number of us may even be arrested and sent to the Gulag in the relatively near future. We are in deep danger. n nSome people may think that I am engaging in hyperbole when comparing the USA to a banana republic. I don't think that I am even slightly exaggerating. Can someone be so kind as to poke holes in my theory? It would be greatly appreciated.
"Can someone be so kind as to poke holes in my theory? It would be greatly appreciated." n nWell, OK, you could have said: n n“”We live in a country that is only a Mexican two step away from being a banana republic.”
This is another excellent post by Mr. Wehner and he gets right to the point. The news media is, by and large, prejudiced against conservatives but holds liberals to such a low standard that whatever liberals do is somehow just fine. Yes, people died and that's a tragedy. But if you believe the mainstream press, it is only a tragedy, nothing more. n nThere's no look at what went wrong and why. There's no look at who is responsible and why. There's no look at what can the U.S. do to prevent such a tragedy in the future and if the government is doing anything preventative whatsoever. For these four dead Americans the media is content with an obituary and nothing else. n nThis practice is corrosive and damaging to our nation. It allows liberals free reign to do as they like and not be held accountable. It makes their governing sloppy, puts lives at risk, and weakens the United States in the view of other nations. If we, as a nation, do not protect our citizens, if when our citizens are murdered we do nothing, then other nations will show the very same lack of regard for us. n nAnd, to be blunt, if the U.S. has such a biased press, why shouldn't Russia have a similarly biased press? Why should any nation aspire to something more than what the United States has with our freedoms and Bill of Rights? Why should they do more than we do? n nFurther, this journalistic practice weakens the press itself. The journalists who hold liberals to such a low standard continue to besmirch their own positions. After all, if liberal politicians are always given a free pass, and conservatives are always held to a different standard, what, precisely, do readers gain from the newspaper? Readers know, as sure as night follows day, how a story will be told. There is little new to gain upon reading the paper. n nOur media does little to keep those in power in check. Conservatives expect poor coverage, demeaning and spiteful reports, and will adjust to them. Liberals expect, and get, glowing reports, little if any negative press, and continue to do as they will. For liberals it's more free and positive publicity. For conservatives, it's the same old same old. n nIn the end, our nation is the loser. We lose the opportunity and space to debate ideas because we certainly don't see that in the newspaper. We lose accountability in our political leaders. We lose any insight into the news because journalists do little to uncover the why of story and leave readers with fluff and no substance. n nThe press is failing us; we need to hold them accountable.
"The press is failing us; we need to hold them accountable. " n nI completely agree. n nQuestion: How do we hold them accountable? This is not a snide or insincere question. I really mean it. How can we hold them accountable?
How do we hold the press accountable? To begin, whenever there's an article that is biased, people should point that out by commenting on the article, writing an email to the newspaper, or sending an actual postal letter. That takes work, but it's necessary. n nThe Washington Post today (Friday, Nov. 23) had an article about the letters they received about a front page picture of a baby wrapped in a white cloth. People considered that biased against Israel because the Post did not publicize Israeli casualties nor does the Post write about Hamas bombings with the same emotion. People wrote the Post and the Post was forced to comment about it. It doesn't take away the original picture but it tells the Post that people are watching what they do and are not afraid to note issues when they arise. n nNext, I would encourage people to gently and respectfully note facts to others when there's a good opportunity. That is, when people quote articles that are biased or simply wrong, we point out the error. Not is a rough or disrespectful way, that is just fighting and does nothing but alienate people, but with a calm explanation of what the truth actually is. n nWhen people discuss, to continue the theme, of how Israel reacts to Hamas, or Hezbollah, it's proper to point out that Israelis live with constant bombing and missile attacks. That these attacks are now routine does not mean they are less terrifying or less horrific. So, we should kindly note that Israel lives under conditions that America would never tolerate. That's pointing out what the mainstream press fails to note. (Sometimes the bias is in the form of what's *not* printed, as well.) n nFinally, I would encourage others to read the liberal press and know what it is they are saying. That tells you what others are hearing and you can better respond when you know how others are thinking. That, too, takes time but it's worth it. n nI am interested in other ideas, too.
I thank you for your thoughtful and patient response. n nI cannot dispute any of your suggestions. However, I am concerned about how effective they are. For example, for every person like you (and I would like to include me, except that I do not have the energy and the patience to do what you recommend) there are literally thousands of journalists who are creating and publishing consciously or unconsciously biased information far faster and with far greater effect than an approach such as you suggest can hope to offset, to say nothing of undo. n nHow long and how much energy does it take to smash a bottle of ink in front of a strong fan that blows ink droplets all over a large room with plaster walls? And how long and how much energy does it take a conscientious person such as yourself to clean up the mess? Whatever the answer to the first question is, the answer to the second question is maybe a thousand times greater or maybe a million times greater. And for every conscientious person expending heaven only knows how much effort cleaning up a given mess caused by a given journalist there are thousands of journalists making messes at a prodigious rate. n nFurthermore, trying to appeal to a journalist's conscience to produce unbiased news is not a promising tactic, since most journalists already know that they are creating and publishing biased information because a) they were taught to do so by journalism professors who explicitly proclaim there is no truth except what you make up and convince others, and b) MOST journalists create and publish biased information in the context of their profession’s society – remember JournoList? That did not exist ex nihilo – and they therefore create and publish bias to fit in and get along. In other words, most journalists know they are creating and publishing bias, and do so deliberately. I know that many journalists think the whole fuss about media bias is just ridiculous. If what they publish is viewed by some as biased, so what? Who cares? It is what it is, and furthermore that is the way it should be. What is more they are paid to do so by Pinch Sulzberger, George Soros, et al. for whom the media exist to create and propagate bias and propaganda. It is not easy to appeal to the conscience of such people, who in fact are caricatures of the ogres they inveigh against. n nI frankly think that Brent Bozell and his Media Research Center, Accuracy In Media, Bernard Goldberg, etc. offer the most effective means to confront media bias, but still it is like spitting on a forest fire. I personally think the most effective strategy would be to found a Journal on Biased Journalism – perhaps Bernard Goldberg, Brent Bozell and their staffs as well as that of Accuracy In Media could launch such a project, they certainly have the chops – and that publication could serve as an authoritative base and could assist people writing objectively books on the matter of media bias and its deleterious effects. It would not slay the dragon, but making media bias a matter of rational inquiry – instead of anecdotal outrage – could in the long term be a means of shaming journalism professors who dismiss the importance of unbiased reporting.
"This was the number one foe Mitt Romney was not able to defeat. " n nDid Romney even try? Not that I am aware of. Newt Gingrich did when opportunities arose, but most of the establishment GOP folks are like obsequious Ruling Class underling interns trying to curry favor of the MSM, and not offend it.. Peter finally spoke some truth to power here; it is a start — albeit small — in addressing THE problem compounding MOST of the Nation's other problems. How can we, as a nation, really address our problems when half of the facts and the dialogue is suppressed by the Manipulated Stories Machine?
Great post. Sadly, I doubt that Candy Crowley and her friends will ever read this, let alone recognize themselves. As you've written here, they seem to live in worlds where everyone thinks like they do, and apparently have little capacity to imagine other perspectives on the world.
As for Benghazi? Always sadly fascinating to follow the media echo on a given story. nMaybe someone needs to find a way to create that echo. n nIt certainly made a difference when Brit Hume face-to-face, challenged Bob Woodward and Jeff Zeleny on Benghazi on I think it was Meet the Press before the election. n nJust like it made a difference when the Obama campaign banned Ryan Lizza after his July 2008 profile of Obama as slick Chicago pol. The New Yorker has yet to recover from that. n nRomney lost it in an interview with Bret Baier maybe in January. Don't blame the media for Romney's failed quest. n n
where is the investigation for your brother on ivading Iraq and getting over 3500 Americans killed !!! oh yeah fox news
That investigation is over & done. Where were you? The same clueless CIA that failed to detect the original 9-11 attack, that told us bin Laden was in Tora Bora, & that didn't see the Benghazi attacks coming told Bush it was a slam dunk Saddam had WMD. n nThe CIA intelligence is so bad that the Department of Defense is ramping up its own intelligence gathering capabilities. Blame Frank Church for that. n nSaddam was defeated in a matter of weeks. Most of the deaths you allude to were a result of Bush trying to tamp down the impending civil war brewing there, whose fires were continually being stoked by al Qaeda & Iran.
Saddam was defeated in a matter of weeks. You are of course referring to that war with George Bush Senior that was indeed won by America in a matter of weeks. Perhaps that was before your time. n nBUT on recommendation from Colin Powell, Secretary of State Bush Sr. ordered that victorious army to stand down. If i got it right, Colin Powell at behest of the UN recommended the commanding general who saw his way clear to Baghdad and the final ousting of Saddam to stop and desist. n nThe upshot of that pull-back was a relentless hunting down for the following decade nby Saddam and his goons of any who gave aid and comfort to the US. And if we believe reports from other media than our "ethical/principled" we can imagine what that hunt and penalty entailed for persons caught. n nHad that first war in Iraq been permitted its inevitable conclusion the second Bush Iraq War would probably not have been necessary with all its costs in money, blood and effects on the USA. We might surmise that 9/11 would still be fantasy in some hothead's dreams.
K2K, n nHow about Seamus, Big Bird, & Elmo? n nI heard a guy from Europe in an interview talking about our recent elections. He was aghast that with all the hyper-important things going on in the world, the American political debate was about a dog on the roof of a car & Big Bird. He thought that was looney tunes. n nBut those stories were a welcome diversion from the blatant ineffectiveness of Obama's first term in office, weren't they?
if the senate woud approved the 35,000,000 in security upgrades the sec of state requested it would have never happened but you did not no that did you ? and McCain voted no and now has the gall to asked what and why this happened
What competent executives & department heads do is effectively deploy the resources they have available to them. n nDo suppose the security requirements in Zurich or Prague were the same as those in an al Qaeda hotbed on the anniversary of 9-11?
This blog is one of my must-reads, and I value the work of all who write here, but I find Mr. Wehner naive in the extreme in his noticing just now, in 2012, that the MSM *really are* biased against conservatives and their world view. nI don't know your age, Mr. Wehner, but here's a brief history lesson. The bias you see in the Benghazi story has been visible to me since the early part of the Reagan administration, and I think a case can be made for it being apparent as far back as the 1964 presidential campaign. n But let's, just for argument's sake, go back to Reagan's first term and start there. I remember well watching Dan Blather, sitting in all of his stiff-necked pomposity, affecting his Texas good ole boy manner, with his sidekick, Bill Moyers, former Johnson administration political operative, seated next to him at the CBS "news" desk, basically blaming the homeless crisis on the Gipper. (But wait, what about all those court decisions and government policies vacating asylums?) And, of course, everywhere on the front pages and editorial and op-ed pages of the day, as well as the evening news broadcasts of the three networks, the smug condescension meted out to RWR for his approach to dealing with the Soviet Union in the Cold War ("We win; they lose."). And let's not forget their favorite pejorative adjectives of the era: "trickle-down," as in economics, and "Star Wars," as in delusional missile defense ideas. (Can you say "Iron Dome" or "Aegis"?) Then, of course, along came Ollie North and his terminally stupid gambit to get around the Boland Amendment in the Iran-Contra imbroglio. We were told it was a plot hatched in the Oval Office, don't ya know, a subversion of the Constitutional process, which it was – as is the vote stealing that is as routine to Democrats as breathing in every biennial federal election. (There were 100 percent votes for Obama in multiple Philly precincts in this last election. Larry Sabato thinks "that's worth looking into." I'm sure those layers of fact checkers at the Inquirer are hard at work as you read this.) n1992. It was "the economy, stupid." Except the recession, while short-lived, was reported as a "near depression" and was over before GHWB left the White House. Of course his *leaving* the White House may have had something to do with all those "out-of-touch patrician president" stories, like the much reported "supermarket checkout gaffe." As Professor Glenn Reynolds says, it was all about the narrative. n2000: W’s DWI. Hanging chads and the Supreme Court "fix"; the incredibly partisan mass firing of all those U.S. attorneys (just like Clinton in 1992); the “unprecedented” war in Iraq without UN approval (like Clinton in Bosnia?); no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (and every Western intelligence agency and Clinton thought they were there, too); the unwarranted spying on bank transactions of terrorists (the New York Times was for it — again, Clinton — before it was against it (W); Katrina (does Staten Island have power and water yet after Sandy? Anybody?); and, of course, the housing bubble that popped and the economy that collapsed because W just didn't scream loud enough and often enough at Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd to stop the kiting of paper at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. n2008: John McCain, the erstwhile non-Republican Republican media darling, did you know he could have been, might have been, but wasn't a philanderer with that what’s-her-name the lobbyist? No? Well then what was the story to that effect doing on the front page of the New York Times at the start of the campaign? Just asking. n[Post continued below]
Don't forget 1999 when NBC held on to the Juanita Broaddrick interview until after the Clinton impeachment vote. If they would have aired it before he would have been a goner.
[Continued from previous post] nAnd now it’s 2012 and there is outrage about Benghazi, where our State Department failed to pull out our diplomatic personnel when other Western governments and NGOs were skedaddling; and our personnel called for help and didn't get it; and the Obama administration has dissembled and deceived and acted indignant about all those racist, sexist, disrespectful questions those nasty Republicans are asking. And what did the MSM say when the story broke? Shush, Mitt Romney. How dare you politicize this? (Politicize, you mean like hanging on every word of Cindy Sheehan for months during the Iraq War, then letting Charles Woods fall down the memory hole inside of a week after his son was abandoned on the battlefield while dying a hero? Ah, but there is a difference: Same war – GWOT, the name the Dems won't speak — but a different party is in the White House. nMr. Wehner, starting in 1973, I worked in three different daily newspapers over a 13-year period, all in the minor leagues, not the bigs on the coasts, and if there were conservatives on the premises they kept their heads down and their mouths shut. As I've written at other times at other places about this, the media we see before us, whose freshest example of bias you're noticing now, has for much of my lifetime — I'm 63 — been a gutless, irresponsible herd that skews our political debates and undermines the strength of our Republic every time it reports on any issue with a political dimension. I ask you: Why *wouldn't* we despise, and wholly distrust, such people? n
Let's face it, the MSM is dead. We don't really have a free press any more. We have a propaganda arm of the dem/lib party. n nI don't know what the results in the medium term will be. I only know that by the time they come for Thomas Friedman, et al. (and come they will) there will be nobody left to stand up for him. n n
The extent of how partisan the media has become is well documented by media watchdog groups such as PEW or CMPA. It is not a matter of conjecture, it has been measured. And yes, it leans far left. n n You don't get these results reported—why would the media report that studies show it is biased? Of course, not reporting these studies is itself a sign of bias. n nI think back when a few left-wing blogs blamed Palin for the tragic shootings in Tucson. The media picked up the story and ran with it. I can think of few things as despicable as falsely accusing someone of causing such a tragedy. Did the media ever apologize? No, in fact they even falsely associate Palin with the shooting to this day. n nI have no respect, even a loathing for the media. n n
There is no scandal. Yes, security should have been better, and we can learn from that. But given all the security breaches during the Bush years, to focus on that would be absurd. Otherwise, there’s nothing – the administration was doing an investigation and the CIA withheld from the public information it knew until the investigation was complete. That’s standard operating procedure. The Republicans are putting partisanship ahead of country. Bitter about the election they want something to get Obama on. Yet this column shows that to turn this into a scandal they need innuendo and baseless accusations. The Democrats should mock and ridicule the Republicans on this, and the media should not be goaded by conservatives into treating this as something different than it is. Republicans should be ashamed of putting country behind partisanship.
If the investigation pretense was to hold water, then the administration should have reserved all comment until the investigation was complete. But it didn't do that, did it? Instead, it ran with the obscure video story.
Considering what we already know, and have known for a long time, it is surprising that nobody asked just what the Administration is investigating; but , of course, we are talking about the MSM.
Right. Keep up the narrative, Scott. Naifs such as you, low-information voters and the clowns in the mass media are the reason we've got this arrogant, incompetent, "community organizer" as president. When the narrative collapses in the face of reality, the questions are will you have the integrity to admit you and your kind were as wrong as can be and pitch in with the rest of it to fix what needs to be fixed?
There are many mainstream news sources that have been reporting on Benghazi all along. They simply have not gotten too far ahead of the story by making dubious claims of "cover up" or comparing the situation to Watergate (for the umpteenth time) at every opportunity. One would have to question the author's apparent standard for "honorable" journalism in that case.
The extent of how partisan the media has become is well documented by media watchdog groups such as PEW or CMPA. It is not a matter of conjecture. The media leans far left. n nWhen two left-wing blogs blamed Palin for the tragic shootings in Tucson, the media ran with it. Few things can be as despicable as falsely blaming someone for such a tragedy. When the facts came forward, the charges were without merit. Did the media apologize to Palin? Of course not. In fact, the media still ties her name to the tragedy when referencing the shooting. n nI am not only disgusted by the media, I find them to lack honesty and conscience.
Only slightly less disgusting than their coverage thus far is how any inquiry or investigation into Benghazi is uniformly reported as "Republicans vs. Democrats," building the narrative that this is solely a political exercise. The willingness of elected Democrats to ignore four dead Americans in defense of their co-party President is one of the most depressing and morally bankrupt sights I've has the misfortune to witness.
Candy Crowley set up Mitt Romney, in debate #2, and made him look like a liar in front of 65 million people. She has never been taken to task for it and Republicans still go on her Sunday show. That's certainly not the most egregious example but it does set the tone. n nIf the Republicans do not deal with the press, in some way as to force them to be more impartial, they may never win another national election. It's hard enough to defeat the Democrats, it's much harder when you have to do so through a press corps that is willing to overlook everything the Democrats do and distort you message to the point where its unrecognizable.
After his “Welfare” ad and “Jeep” ad, it’s hard to say Candy Crowley made him “look” like a liar. He was a liar.
And yet, the GOP continues to allow these reporters to moderate primary debates where they control the issues and even inject phony strawmen which are then used by the other side. n nThe GOP will continue to lose if they don't change the way they veiw and engage with the NY/DC media axis. These are not good-faith partners seeking the truth …..they are generally an enemy camp that coordinates with the democrat party. n n
For goodness sakes please take your bigotry and ignorance somewhere where it will be more appreciated. This is a place for rationality and reason.
I think you are on to something in that they are blind to their own bias. They engage in group think which equates very much to four legs (Democrats) good, two legs (Republicans) bad. nAnything a Democrat does MUST be based on compassion, kindness, wanting to do the right thing, where anything a Conservative does MUST be based on greed, anger, hate. nThey are simply incapable of analyzing the views of Conservatives in any other way, despite the evidence of history (such as the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK, calling the party of abolition and the 14th and 15th amendments racist) and good old fashion common sense. nAmazing times we are living through, very surreal.
Today, that which passes for a free press and news organizations is nothing more than an integral part of the Oligarchy of the ruling class and its wannabes. Everything we know or believe we understand about what is happening in our government and in politics passes through this filter. It is a filter that stands guard around the government palace and protects those who dwell within from the stain of truth and justice. n nThat is of course unless a court jester strays from the palace edict, in which case they are summarily destroyed in a blast of negative insinuation and scathing public exposure. The media is now simply one more impediment we must breach if we are ever to again be a "free society." n
Excellent article. Another failure of the MSM is their failure to educate the public regarding Obama's disastrous economic policies. I was flabbergasted by the exit poll that showed 53% of voters blamed Bush for our economic problems. They also failed at educating the public regarding what caused the financial crisis to begin with – Democrat intiated policies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn't pay them back. They allow the simplistic thinking that it was Bush's fault because he happened to be president. No MSM journalists ever thinks to ask the question "What did Bush do to create the financial crisis?" When the Democrats blather on about Republicans "wanting to bring back the policies that got us into this mess" the MSM failed by not asking, "exactly what policies are you talking about?" It's nonsensical, but the MSM fails to challenge it.
Well said. When the book "Reckless Endangerment" by Gretchen Morgenson came out the media ignored her book. Her book was the definitive exposition on the underpinnings of what policies led to the Housing Bubble. She took prisoners and named names. Too many of those behind the policies are still in power. The media is protecting them. n nCompare the media's lack of interest in this book compared with the media's bringing on lowlife authors who wrote books about Palin, after setting up shop next door to her house.
Ah so predictable. At least you didn't disappoint by managing to get blackface and bamboozled (sic) into the mix, i.e. opponents of President Obama are racist. Bravo. When liberals resort to calling conservatives racist it means they are losing the argument. And this: President Obama is the antithesis of leadership as he is a first rate demagogue.
Except…there is no scandal. Something chaotic, thousands of miles away, happened. Conceivably there was a mistake about when/if personnel should have been pulled. If so, that mistake would have happened many layers away from the White House. Immediately after the event, Romney said "It happened this way". A bit later, Obama said "It might have happened this way, or perhaps that way". n nAnd..that's it, guys. Some mistakes may have been made, some lessons may have been learnt. This huge overblown conspiracy theory you guys have going on about it, it's just…silly. And…you really really need to let this kind of silly stuff go. It's stuff like this, similar to the Akin/Mourdock silliness, that makes it impossible for Republicans to get elected. n nBlaming the media for that…it's denial. You need to fight on sensible ground that other people care about. Fight on the Stimulus, fight on the Economy, fight on Obamacare. These are sensible things which will help you win elections. Benghazi just…isn't.
You seem to be obsessed with what wins elections. There is something else at work here. It is corruption and scandal. Elections are not the solution to corruption and scandal. Elections are solutions to issues of guidance, governance and leadership. n nTry to keep up. n
Corruption. Utter, almost total and complete. With this level of corruption in our media we are as third-world a nation as any of the Latin American or African dictatorships.
As you remember, the Valerie Plame incident was a mega big deal for the left because supposedly there existed the mere possibility somebody could get killed. But when people actually get killed, they just go about their merry business as usual way & say, "Oh well, stuff happens." n nWhat the left doesn't realize is that their cavalier indifference over the Benghazi attacks shows they really weren't concerned about things like the Valerie Plame disclosure at all. They just use incidents like that as an opportunities to scorch Republican administrations. n nHave they no sense of decency? Have they no shame? n nFrom now on, every time the left feigns concern over something a Republican administration does, I'm going to take it with a grain of salt. More than likely, they're just raising the hue & cry as a political opportunity, full of sound & fury, signifying nothing. When that happens, I'll just say to them: "Hey, it's a terrible tragedy, but stuff happens. Get over it."
This article has nailed the problem, and possibly offered a solution. The press coverage of Libya has been scandalous, it is a fact. Perhaps this is a bit like asking cops to investigate cops, but what if a press organization was to take up hounding and badgering reporters of various mainstream media outlets in regard to their malpractice on the matter? Are they not public figures as well? n nWithout such questioning, I see little hope in them ever changing.
I despise journalists, worse than criminal trial lawyers…what they do now is more insidious than crooked defense lawyers. They are willfully engaging in political propaganda…DISGUISED AS NEWS. this is nothing more than mass brainwashing, and it seems to be working. A perfect storm really, an increasingly dumbed down populace, with an increasingly authoritarian government, and an increasingly arrogant lobbyist press… This will not turn out well for our country
Very good article. I agree with every word. In this past election, the USA was given a choice between Political Correctness and the economic survival of our nation. For some reason that I cannot comprehend, we decided that being PC was more important. I have 3 masters degrees and over 20 years of experience, and I have been unemployed for almost the entire Obama administration. This will be my first Thanksgiving that I have spent on Food Stamps, and I am not alone. I mean, it's great that we have a celebrity President, don't get me wrong. He looks awesome on Letterman. But is that really the most important issue in our country right now? Have we all become so afraid of being called racists that we continue to vote for a fool to run the free world? My career is destroyed, and the country is on it's way to Third World status, but hey, at least we didn't hurt the feelings of a black person. That's the important thing.
As a dues paying member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (VRWC Est. 1998) it gives me great heart to know that Obama is easily bamboozled even by the feckless GOP leaders in Washington. I was starting to fear that the reason Obama kept winning was because he really is as special and as genius as the press keeps saying. But if as well-informed and intelligent a poster such as you, whose work I have been following for weeks!!!, says that Obama is easily bamboozled then I guess the situation is as I've long suspected, the GOP needs new leadership because Obama is as mediocre and clueless as I've always thought. As Gen. Erwin Rommel allegedly said to captured British officers during the North Africa campaign, "Gentlemen, you fought like lions but were commanded by asses."
Nice try. Benghazi. n n"The press has … treated this story with ambivalence and reluctance…" The same reluctance displayed for the McCarthy Hearings, HUAC and those chapters in recent American history Watergate, Monicagate, Climategate…? n nFor those of us who think fairy tales archetypal, the wicked witch at the celebration of the birth of the New Age – fundamental transformation of the body politic of the USA to the designs of "liberals / democrats" – is the constitutionally protected "free press" that curses the infant (America a very young Republic as Republics go) to sleep until awakened to fundamental transformation with the kiss of the prince. n nSome/many? of the members of that exclusive club and the gods they worship understand that Constitutional First Amendment protection of speech, thought, opinion is reserved ONLY for that "free press. Otherwise archaic, irrelevant and defective q.v. political correctness.. n nSo we finally accept, with reluctance and foreboding the wisdom developing through our "education"/training/brainwashing that with the "free press" of the USA as we must apply lessons learned of our politicians and educators that nulllius in verba.