Benghazi & the 'lamestream' media
I reviewed the various Sunday new shows with considerable curiosity to see how they would cover the latest news on Benghazi, in which four high-ranking whistleblowers have come forward amidst threats from higher-ups to give what should be damning testimony before Congress.
Characteristically, “Fox News Sunday” gave it thorough coverage, but I was pleasantly surprised to see CBS' “Face the Nation” make it the lead story with Bob Schieffer asking some honest, in-depth and hard-hitting questions of his guests, Darrell Issa, who chairs House Oversight Committee, and Mike Rogers, head of the House Intelligence Committee.
NBC's “Meet the Press” gave the issue only scant and vague coverage, while ABC's “This Week” completely ignored the controversy, focusing instead on how the president would achieve his legislative priorities and Jason Collins' coming out of the closet.
The “lamestream” media are continuing to do this administration's bidding, but there appear to be some chinks developing in the armor.
The dead ambassador and the other three brave souls who ignored orders and died trying to save him deserve better from our media, our government and our country, all of which seem to be unwilling to give them the time of day.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Behind tax inversions
- Find hilarity in the headlines
- ‘PC’ Ebola approach deadly
- GCC 19, sportsmanship 0
- Science on fracking’s side
- Opposed to efficiency?
- Vandergrift killing Olmsted’s vision
- Won’t stop drilling
- Hidden Ebola agenda?
- Ride-sharing’s advantages
- Kennedy, not Roosevelt