The media protecting Obama, controlling public opinion on Benghazi
admin | On 01, Nov 2012
The mainstream media has been quite busy lately, especially covering the recent devastation from hurricane Sandy. Nevertheless, there are mountains of other pieces of news to cover. So let’s suppose… George W. Bush purposely mislead the American people for a week about an attack that took place in …say… Libya somewhere, saying that the catalyst was a low-budget movie trailer. Then, reports surface, saying that he purposely denied requests for reinforcements, resulting in the death of a US Ambassador and 3 other Americans. The media would be ravenous, seeking blood in the water, ready to sink their teeth into anything that smacks of a Watergate-style scandal. Well, there are certainly gallons of blood in the water about the Benghazi attack that took place on Barack Obama’s watch, but where are the media piranhas? The answer: nowhere to be found. The New York Post reports:
Of the five news shows last Sunday, only “Fox News Sunday” treated this as a major story. On the other four, the issue came up only when Republicans mentioned it. “Meet the Press” host David Gregory shushed a guest who tried to bring up the subject, saying, “Let’s get to Libya a little bit later.” He never did, but he saved plenty of time to dive deep into the question of what Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comments on abortion and rape mean for the Romney campaign.
Did they show the GW Bush the same easy treatment? Not exactly:
In 2000, a Democratic operative orchestrated an “October surprise” attack on George W. Bush, revealing that 24 years earlier, he’d been arrested for drunken driving. The media went into a feeding frenzy.
“Is all the 24-hour coverage of Bush’s 24-year-old DUI arrest the product of a liberal media almost drunk on the idea of sinking him, or is it a legitimate, indeed unavoidable news story?” asked Howard Kurtz on his CNN show “Reliable Sources.” The consensus among the guests: It wasn’t a legitimate news story. But the media kept going with it.
The mainstream media’s actions concerning ‘Benghazi-gate’ are quite instructional, especially since we have a historical comparison. George W. Bush was found with a DUI back in the day, and it gets mountains of media coverage; while, Barack Obama makes calls that result in American blood being spilled in Libya, and the media looks the other way. If there were any question about a media bias, this issue blows the argument out of the water.
Interestingly enough, they cannot keep the American people from awaking to the scandal forever. Already, there are too many bullhorns shouting from the rooftops.
Of course, the media does need to retain some credibility …but they’re going to do it after November 6th. Get ready for a massive investigation, when the media libs have nothing to lose. At the end of the day, everyone wants to keep their desk and get paid, and so do the folks in the MSM.