I think this piece by Tim Graham at Newsbusters today perfectly encapsulates how many right-leaning folk (like me) feel about the mainstream media. Oft times it's not what they cover, but how they cover it. Check it out:
From 9 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. Tuesday, morality and conscience did quiet battle with protocol and budgets in Courtroom 1A of U.S. District Court, to which dozens of supporters marched that morning through downtown Knoxville, led by two Buddhist monks chanting a Japanese prayer for peace.
“They had white roses, Bibles . . . no dynamite, no machine guns . . . none of the tools you’d anticipate someone having to hinder the national defense.”
What are the above quotes about? Oh, just some protesters who broke into a nuclear weapons production facility, hammered down a wall and smeared human blood all over the place, you see.
Graham ponders how article author Dan Zak would feel if someone broke into his house and did same. Hell, I wonder how Zak would cover a similar incident at an abortion clinic. Think the terms "morality" and "conscience" would be used to describe the protesters? Think it'd be pointed out that they had no weapons, and only held onto Bibles and said prayers? Keep dreaming.
It's like yesterday's post about disgraced newsguy Dan Rather. There's Rather -- actually bitching about how President Obama is treated (by his opponents and, presumably, by the press) -- yet there he was, as combative as can be with Richard Nixon, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush ... suddenly cutting off the interview with Bush the Father (then vice-president), and then attempting to influence the 2004 election with a story about Bush the Son that was based on phony documents. As I noted in yesterday's post, only IF there was someone like then-Rather asking the tough questions to Boss Obama, just like Rather did with Nixon and Bush the Father. After all, nobody died with Watergate like they did at Benghazi, eh?
And what will happen if Boss Obama or, more likely, Hillary Clinton, goes down (or at least takes a huge hit) due to Benghazi? How will the reporter (or reporters) responsible for this story be treated? Dennis Miller weighs in:
And the press isn't going to go after this story, Bill. A lot of people in the press. Maybe some guy on the internet will break it eventually. But you realize Woodward and Bernstein became Woodward and Bernstein because what they did to Nixon. The key thing in that equation was Nixon. You had a free rein on him.
You can't go after this guy. You won't get Woodward and Bernstein status. You’ll be out of the game. If you’re the one who brings down Barack Obama, you will be out of the game. And if you go after Hillary, who’s going to run the next eight years, you’ll be more out of the game. So, in this case, it’s, you know, it's not going to happen. The press isn't going to dig on on this.
As sad as this is, thank goodness there exists a right-leaning network -- Fox News -- to counter what Miller says. Twenty years ago this situation wasn't around. We still really had only the Big 3's nightly newscasts and CNN on cable to filter our news to us. The problem here, though, is that all these old media outlets will join the Boss Obama administration in ripping Fox as "politically motivated," "in the pocket of the Koch brothers," etc. Still, without FNC, the word "Benghazi" wouldn't even be known at all. As if to make this point, the Washington Post does a portrait of one of the only MSM reporters (outside of Fox) following the Benghazi story, Sharyl Atkisson. But they include a ridiculous quote from the ridiculous Media Matters that she's only doing so because she's a "tool of the Right":
“I think Attkisson has completely given herself over to the right and is very happy to be their champion,” says Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow at the liberal Media Matters for America organization.
The article also notes how Boss Obama minions hassled her and screamed at her, notably for her reporting on another Obama boondoggle, "Fast and Furious." She says such doesn't worry her, 'tho I'm not so sure she shouldn't be concerned. After all, the poor dude who made that campy anti-Islam video on which Boss Obama and company blamed -- knowingly falsely -- the Benghazi attacks is still in the klink. And for what?
RELATED: The WaPo also features a blog titled "Who's tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers." How 'bout that, eh? It should only matter, somehow, to that demographic that Boss Obama and crew abandoned our embassy in Libya.
Unbelievable. If blogs existed back in the early 1970s, would this same paper have put up a post titled "Who's tweeting about Watergate? Radicals, hippie college kids, and limousine Marxists."Posted by Hube at May 8, 2013 03:56 PM | TrackBack