“60 Minutes” Fell Down on the Job

Say, maybe we should do that second presidential debate over. Mitt Romney was right after all; Barack Obama at first refused to call the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism.

The fact that this piece of news–which could have turned around the perception that Romney misstated the facts on Benghazi in the second debate–was not released until the day before the election is completely inexcusable and represents journalistic malpractice at its worst.

  1. Jimmy Carter

    Not surprised.

    I wonder what else is out there….

  2. Mothership_Greg

    This isn’t the least bit surprising, is it?  We already knew from his appearance on The View that at this point in the Obama Benghazi Game, Mr President was refusing to label the terrorist attack a terrorist attack.  His evasion during the 2nd debate, pretending that his “acts of terror” comment from the Rose Garden was an explicit identification of the terrorist attack as a terrorist attack, was truly a remarkable act of Clintonian word play.  But this is a man who tells baldfaced lies about things like Fast and Furious, so no, nobody should be surprised.  Sadly, those of us who wish to see accountability for F & F have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists; perhaps not quite as crazy as Oliver Stone on JFK, but stuffed firmly into the “Vince Foster didn’t commit suicide” box by the Important Reasonable People.  The Left wishes to do the same with Benghazi; perhaps Nancy Pelosi will say that John McCain’s tirades are about voter suppression?

  3. Nick Stuart
    Jimmy Carter: Not surprised.

    I wonder what else is out there…. · 18 minutes ago

    The Rashid Khalidi tape. PBO’s college records, lots of things.

  4. Jimbo

    My question is: why did CBS come forward with this now?  The timing seems bizarre.  Why not wait 2 days or even release this at all?

  5. Macsen

    This wasn’t a negligent act. This was intentional. A deliberate lie of omission. 

  6. johnak

    Yes, “Fell down on the job” is a pretty generous way to put it.  It was a deliberate deception by omission.  

    With respect to the question of timing, releasing it now is too late to cause damage to Obama, but down the road CBS can say it released the information prior to the election.  Corrupt to the max.

  7. Pig Man
    <uncalled for snarky comment/> You can use this as your excuse for Romney losing the election tommorrow. </uncalled for snarky comment>
  8. M1919A4

    I think that the editing was carefully done to further the network’s efforts to re-elect President Obama.

  9. Diaryof1
    Pig Man: <uncalled for snarky comment/> You can use this as your excuse for Romney losing the election tommorrow. </uncalled for snarky comment> · 50 minutes ago

    You actually didn’t have your snark on. After you learn some basic HTML, and after the election, maybe try again. But really, it’s best to not say “I was only joking” or “I was only being snarky” when in fact you weren’t. There’s a great proverb about that, something about a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows.

  10. Mickerbob

    Wasn’t the full interview available on CBS.com after the broadcast?  I am trying to recall….

  11. Cal Lawton

    Yes, and because those journalists are now propagandists I don’t consume their content. It’s their credibility they’ve trashed, not me. The good news I can count on Breitbart, Townhall, and Daily Caller to do some decent reporting.