Wednesday, October 31, 2012

New Epidemic in the Fourth Estate, Benghazi-phobia?

This morning's news ticker on many of the generic news-board homepages of America blink across a number of titles. Tebow could get traded to the Jaguars, Disney will be putting out new Star Wars films, and Octo-mom could go to rehab; all of these languish on's rotating spin-wheel of pop-pieces.

The real story is what is not listed. Several American lives were lost on foreign soil with no hope of aid. Is there nothing for anyone to explain? It has been weeks since September 11, when the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya was the subject of a deadly attack. Hardly a word of explanation has been uttered to the American people. The mainstream media has simply glossed it over and moved on. But this story is a sleeping giant; there are obvious inconsistencies in the narrative of the administration and their response.

If there was a US drone (or two) diverted to fly over the site of the riots, why would Secretary Panetta imply that he dealt with a lack of real-time information? If Ambassador Stephens had asked just weeks earlier to keep his 16-man security team for fears of just such an attack, why was security at its weakest? If emails and calls sent during the attack show that even the personnel inside the consulate knew this was no protest gone-astray, why would President Obama initially pin the blame to a YouTube video? 

If all of these facts don't add up (and they don't), why has the Fourth Estate not turned their hawk-eyes to the tragedy instead of NBC's Wednesday night line-up? How, when we have lost servants of our society on foreign soil who had no hope of aid, are we not eager to ask questions? How, in the face of a President who seems to be in no hurry to explain his blatant mis-handling of a foreign tragedy, do journalists nation-wide not cry for accountability? Why is no one handling this other than Fox News?

Why? Volume and bias.

According to Jonah Goldberg's story for the New York Post, "I don’t think there’s a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts. And, collectively, the mainstream media’s instincts run liberal."

The mainstream media is sitting in the journalistic equivalent of Willy Wonka's factory at the moment. They are reporting an election, an upheaval of a football season, a super-storm, and the list goes on. Maybe Benghazi got covered up, not by intent, but by intuitive bias.

But with so many questions surrounding the cause, the intent, the response, and the explanation of the Obama Administration, is this a story that the media's inherent bias should be allowed to sweep under the rugIs such an inherent bias even acceptable in the world's supposed leading proponent of objective reporting?

VA GOP Caucus

No comments: