Media Fail

I mentioned this earlier today:

Pathetic.

7 responses to “Media Fail

  1. On the NYTimes, the top story is about hospital billing practices. Bittman’s cooking piece is #3. Benghazi doesn’t make the top 10. I assume AG_Conservative is also pissed about that?

    Besides, the heightened interest in Benghazi is a result of right wing mania over Issa’s joke of a hearing. If anything, the restraint of the media to promote political shenanigans is a good thing, not a bad thing. I guarantee that if they’d uncovered serious mishandling, every news outlet would be all over it.

    • Besides, the heightened interest in Benghazi is a result of right wing mania over Issa’s joke of a hearing. If anything, the restraint of the media to promote political shenanigans is a good thing, not a bad thing.

      So, there is a belief that this is nothing more than a concocted effort by the guys on the right to make Obama and Hillary look bad. I get that and it’s partisan.

      On the other hand, CBS’ “Most Popular” story in their side bar as measured by hits/views is the Benghazi hearing. You would think that a news outlet wanting to cater news to its viewers would move their most viewed story closer to the top of the fold and not bury it on page 25+.

      I guarantee that if they’d uncovered serious mishandling, every news outlet would be all over it.

      I wish I knew how to go back and measure the coverage of the phony Dan Rather report and the Benghazi hearing. It would be fascinating to see how the CBS News went after Bush in what republicans call a fabricated story and how they went after Obama in what democrats call a fabricated story.

      • You would think that a news outlet wanting to cater news to its viewers would move their most viewed story closer to the top of the fold and not bury it on page 25+.
        You would think that a news outlet wanting to cater news to its viewers would move their most viewed story closer to the top of the fold and not bury it on page 25+.

        As I pointed out, that CBS result is an aberration that is shared only by Fox News. The story doesn’t crack the top 10 on NYT and is only #3 on LATimes, so it’s a pretty hard argument that the media is ignoring a “really really popular” story. And more to the point, it’s still a stupid story that doesn’t deserve front page coverage regardless of how popular it is.

  2. It’s not a real story, there is no substance. I do think Jon Stewart should mock it as a pathetic attempt to turn a fully investigated two year old story into something to detract attention from how the GOP has been riveted by internal conflicts and declining popularity.

    • It’s not a real story, there is no substance.

      First, I am convinced that Obama has never run or managed a real crisis in real time where he was the guy responsible for getting it done. There is nothing that a college student, Harvard Law Review or not, that would provide an opportunity for that experience. Further, his time as an attorney, community organizer and college lecturer would also provide no opportunity for a crisis, a real time event, to be managed.

      Hillary, perhaps her time as First Lady gave her experience in what it must be like.

      So, it might be unfair to expect Obama to handle this with a degree of competence.

      With that said, if it’s true that there were forces ready to move, and it sounds like there were forces in Tripoli that could have been mobilized, and the administration had them stand down AND it can be proven that such an order was done to tamp down the narrative, this is ugly.

      Further, there is clear and present evidence that the administration knew within hours that they were dealing with a terrorist attack. In fact, they knew the organization. Yet for days Obama and is staff insisted that it was a YouTube video. Not only was this not true, but it could have delayed the FBI investigation.

      I think that there is plenty of substance here.

      a pathetic attempt to turn a fully investigated two year old story

      Blink
      Blink

      Scott, this attack took place on September 11, 2012. It’s not yet 7 months old. Further, this was a turning point in the election. Remove the bullshit assist by Crowley and you have a different President potentially.

  3. OK, it’s not as old a story as I thought, but where is any evidence that forces were ready to move? Some story said there were forces in Croatia, but that was debunked quickly. No, this is a distraction from real issues. Obama was going to win this election in any event. The President called it terrorism early. Too bad the GOP wants to try to create scandals rather than solve the real economic problems facing the country. This story goes nowhere – it’s old, stale and complex. The problems we face are real. Time for the GOP to stop trying to manufacture something against Obama and instead to work with Democrats to find compromises to address the real problems facing the country.

    • but where is any evidence that forces were ready to move?

      They were on the airplane in Tripoli!

      Obama was going to win this election in any event.

      The election was very much in doubt at this point. Romney was running away with the women vote and was surging in the polls.

      The President called it terrorism early.

      He most certainly did not. You will claim that he used the words “terrorist acts” in his Rose Garden speech, words that Candy confirmed when she entered a political debate. But he used those words in the general, to allude to acts against America in general, spanning a decade or more.

      He maintained that these attacks were the result of spontaneous protests to a YouTube video for days, weeks even. He clearly did not advocate the theory that Benghazi was an act of terror carried out by organized forces in a preplanned attack.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *