Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
On Friday, I wondered whether the new allegations that our men on the ground in Benghazi had been denied potentially life-saving support from somewhere up the chain of command would finally open up the Obama Administration's handling of Libya to greater media scrutiny. Short answer: nope. Here's Richard Benedetto, writing at Fox News:
On Friday, FoxNews.com reported that it “learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command... -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.”
That’s a very chilling story. And if correct, it could be very damaging to the President Obama’s re-election chances. But looking at the websites Friday of other major news outlets, the story is mostly ignored.
It was not picked up or reported by The New York Times. The Washington Post didn’t cover it either. Same for USA Today. Neither did NBC, CBS, CNN or ABC.
CNN had a link on its Website front page to a story that says “doubts surface” on whether claims of responsibility for the Benghazi attacks was the work of terrorists. The story mostly supports administration accounts and refutes Republican critics such as Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.)
NBC’s only Friday story on Libya said in its headline. “Libya Disappears from Romney Stump Speeches.”
CBS’s latest story on Libya had House Speaker John Boehner asking Obama for “answers” about the attacks.
Look, I've never been one to get that worked up about media bias, mainly because I don't have any expectation of it changing from within. My attitude has always been that there are two appropriate responses: (1) ridicule it and (2) counter-program it. I'd rather beat them than be outraged by them.
In this case, however, the scandal of the media's virtually complete silence is dwarfed only by the scandal of the underlying story from Benghazi. Where is that generation of avenging angels who supposedly went through journalism school for no purpose other than to hold those in power accountable? Do they assume that, because the story originated with Fox, it's not worthy of mainstream reporters? And if so, why aren't they making their bones refuting the particulars of the Fox story?
I thought this was the generation of journalists who were drawn to the craft by "All the President's Men"? So why are they acting like that film's title is emblazoned on their business cards?
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
No shock at all that the MSM, other than Fox, ignored Benghazi on the Sunday shows.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/28/Media-Cover-Up-Aside-from-FOX-Sunday-Shows-Fail-to-Raise-Benghazi
The blood of the four who died there is on not only the hands of the decision-makers who denied appropriate security and aid at crunch time. It is on the hands of the MSM who are complicit in the Obama administration cover-up by ignoring it.
It is on the hands of any of us who know about it, and remain silent.
What to do?
Oct '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
Much like leaving the weakest of the herd to die or be killed, it's a possibility (though only small) that they might start going after this stronger if Obama loses. Once his aura of invincibility has been pierced and they can no longer carry him over the finish line, they may turn on him.
It's the only way, other than if enough public shame is heaped on them to make them actually do their jobs, that this will ever be covered to our satisfaction.
Dec '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
For the moment, they will cloak themselves in Hurricane Sandy. Obama is playing into that by flying down here to Florida, last night, then suddenly discovering Sandy and flying back to DC, missing his scheduled event here. It will be all Sandy, all the time, from now through the election.
After the election and Obama's defeat, the legacy media will discover Benghazi and try to claw back some credibility with the viewers/readers, but, I suspect, it will be too late.
Aug '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
Dave, I don't think that journalists have a shame response .
Their accountability to the public has been nonexistent forever.
They "don't make the news, they just report it". That's the old saw.
But this time , how do we make them pay ? Quit reading the NYT, WaPo ? Stop watching ABCBSNBCNN ? Hell, we already have !
Oct '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
"Where is that generation of avenging angels who supposedly went through journalism school for no purpose other than to hold those in power accountable? "
THEY NEVER WERE! This was always a preening younger generation supporting their teachers, the left wing journos. You cannot be that naive. Self deceived perhaps, but not naive.
Aug '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN came out in 1976. One can imagine that journalists inspired by that film would be somewhere between 48 and 56. How many of the 24 hour news cycle blog oriented journalists do you think that describes?
Add to that the fact that ATPM was about Republican corruption, and the intrusion of Cultural Studies Dominance in English and Journalism classes, and you have a combination of raw bias.
Aug '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
>>So why are they acting like that film's title is emblazoned on their business cards?<<
What a wonderful line, Troy. (And a very good question, of course.)
Jun '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
They're just following orders.
I guess we can thank god we're not down with the lethal strain of fascism.
Jun '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
You could go after the advertisers.
Edited on October 29, 2012 at 11:55pmSep '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
wellllllllllll....you see, socialism is the ultimate "speaking truth to power" and covers all other sins.
-the end-
Jun '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
Jake Tapper did file a written story--I don't know if it made the TV news.
Also, it says a lot when a Denver TV reporter has more interest in this story than the entire MSM.
Over the years, I've run hot and cold on the whole media bias issue. Sure, it's always been there, but at times I've been convinced that it wasn't all that significant. The Benghazi case has convinced me that it's highly significant and a corrupting influence. The MSM's willful ignorance in this case is criminal.
Edited on October 30, 2012 at 12:12amAug '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
Carver
You could go after the advertisers. · 45 minutes ago
Edited 43 minutes ago
I presently show 800 plus channels on the tv, any idea where I should start ? The single coffee cup people or the gotomeeting.com water wizards ? Not being flip, but the problem isn't watching and noting the advertisers, it's deeper than that. We need to shift the culture, which should be nearly impossible as the impressionable ones are laying about out on the fringe watching stuff that would curl your dreadlocks.
Edited on October 30, 2012 at 12:53amAug '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
This is a Man-Caused Disaster that must not be politicised, in the interests of Democracy!
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
Very few. But if we're talking about the people making the editorial decisions at WaPo, The New York Times, and the broadcast networks -- the actual culprits here -- it becomes a much more representative sample. These are the people who got into the news business because of Watergate and Vietnam, when the media -- to hear them tell it -- "ended an unjust war" and "brought down a criminal in the White House." That sense of zeal is perhaps to be admired. Conditioning its use on whether the story in question is ideologically palatable, however, is not.
Dec '11
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
How incompetent do they think Obama is if this is a "dog bites man" story?
Jul '11
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
This is a president that has almost never faced tough questions. Not only do they not care about negative stories, they go out of their way to dismiss them in order for progressive ideology to come through.
No matter what any situation or individual is it will never be good enough if from a conservative and never be a problem if it's a progressive. They've lost credibility and will never get it back.
Romney would do well to have his list of those who refuse to cover this and other stories and marginalize them somehow with his spokesperson.
Oct '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
Look at Obama's response after the debate to the man who asked him the question about who gave the order: something like, "I can't tell you because it would not put a decision-maker in danger." I wouldn't be surprised if the WH has said something similar to all the major media outlets.
My suspicion is that senior editors, under instructions from the WH, have told their reporters either not to cover the story or to hold off until after the election. After the election, the whole thing will become a minor press scandal. A few higher-ups will take the blame and resign, only to be rehired at other MSM papers.
Nov '10
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
Where is the Wall Street Journal on this? Surely they can manage to write something on the subject?
Apr '11
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
Uttered just moments ago on the local ABC affiliate after the weather report was given, "With all this news about Sandy we seem to have completely forgotten Halloween!"
I shake my head in despair.
Mar '11
Re: Where There's Smoke, There's ... Absolutely Nothing to See
Good point, Troy, about how MSM journalists have lost track of their supposed professional integrity on Benghazi. But I think we can look at their failure to report less as a professional mistake, and more as how fully Liberal Sensibilities have transformed into Religion. And by that I mean how not just perceptions of right/wrong or valid/invalid are informed by the priests, rabbis, and cardinals, but more how the very sense of Exists/Doesn't Exist, Reality/Non-reality is informed by the Readings of the Great Texts of Social Justice. Non conforming facts (Benghazi) are not just wrong, they simply aren't.
Edited on October 30, 2012 at 3:17am