Joe Williams said:
We have not heard from victims' families. We have not had full accounting from Leon Panetta as for what he told Obama. The orders to stand down still are in dispute. Suspicions as to the underlying facts about the Benghazi outpost and its use by CIA have not been quelled. The Susan Rice Sunday-morning fable tour of the networks remains unexplained and unjustified, as do comments at the funeral ceremony by Ms. Clinton to victims' families. Obama's grab at the word "terror" as evidence that he defined the attack all along as an "act of terrorism" is as dishonest as Mr. Clinton's old toying with the meaning of "is."
There was outrageous CYA behavior going on the night of the attack and in its aftermath that has not been properly explained. The perpetrators who were going to be stalked to the ends of the Earth remain at large.
And PolitiFact.com ought to give itself a Mostly False for its very use of the word "fact" in its name. That site has been discredited for its bias here ( http://www.politifactbias.com/ ) and elsewhere.
So there clearly are things that need further unbiased, aggressive reporting. Your other "Tell me" demands are unknowns as long as that work does not get done. Your not wanting to know and your disliking those who might seek further information is about as far from anything related to journalism as one can get.
If that's the level of inquisitiveness you would have regardless of which party was in the WH, you're too big a lap dog to be much of a newsperson. If it's not, then you're too dishonest to be much of a newsperson.
When it comes to government, "leaders" and other glorified civil servants impacting our daily lives, I want all sides' feet held to the fire 24/7. It's the only reason the media have a collective seat at the table. Otherwise, cheerleaders & hecklers alternately.
First, sorry for the off-topic shot at you. It was a deck thing for me to do.
On to business:
I'm guessing there's a reason that this summation and the DOZENS of links disproving your assertion contained therein don't count or are evidence of further liberal bias, but here goes (mostly focused on the New York Times, the target of most of the Fox News Screechosphere attacks):
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/whopper-of-the-year-the-mainstream-media-ignored-benghazi/278351/
To sum up, in the 38 days following the attack, "BENGHAZI!!!!" had an A1 presence in the NYT on 18 of those days. Since then, the topic has amassed 27
PAGES of coverage on the NYT website.
The piece also notes CNN and reporter Arwa Damon were recognized for their excellence in reporting the story, including breaking this little nugget: "Damon's stories refuted reports that the attack on the consulate was part of larger anti-American demonstrations throughout the Middle East. Damon's courageous reporting showed it appeared to be a planned attack that came after U.S. diplomats had been warned days before by Libyan officials about the deteriorating security there."
Lastly, just because you don't like the answers given doesn't mean the questions were never asked. In fact, most of the conservative screechosphere thinks that anything short of 24/7 coverage eviscerating Obama and his administration is evidence of liberal bias and coverup. As if everyone in the world is wrong and ONLY Fox News and its viewers are right.
1.Effective media criticism must be specific and accurate. As noted, I have no doubt that there are any number of problems with "MSM" coverage of Benghazi. But a refusal to take the story seriously isn't one of them. The notion that the story has been ignored is fantastical and discrediting. The notion that the entire "MSM" is engaged in a cover-up is idiotic. And when your overall media narrative is wrong, your media criticism is going to suffer. Insofar as people like me tuned out the story, it is largely because so much of the conservative commentary was implausible, right from the first time that Mitt Romney accused his opponent of sympathizing with the terrorists.
2.For all its faults, "the MSM" has orders of magnitude more reporting resources and reportorial talent than the conservative media, even acknowledging the many talented journalists at conservative outlets, who are simply outnumbered. Little surprise that "the MSM" has contributed far more to our understanding of Benghazi than conservative outlets, especially the ones that only do commentary -- which isn't to say there haven't been conservative contributions.
3.Generally respectable outlets and reporters in "the MSM" and the conservative media have made mistakes on the Benghazi story. Various conservative pundits have butchered it embarrassingly.
