2012’s October surprise: Media’s decision to ignore Benghazi lies

Nov. 6, 2012
By Chris Reed

As a libertarian who still seethes over Newt Gingrich’s and George W. Bush’s betrayal of small-government conservatism, I have tons of issues with the modern Republican Party. But I have to say the GOP has my sympathy most national elections because of my incensed reaction to the heavy-handed bias of the national media.

Here we go again.

Who could have imagined that 2012’s October surprise would be the mainstream media simply choosing to ignore a huge geopolitical scandal on the president’s watch? It is now a matter of public record that within a day of the Sept. 11 murders of four Americans in Benghazi, the administration had vast signs it was an organized act of terror. Yet two weeks later, in a speech to the U.N., Barack Obama repeatedly suggested it was a spontaneous assault triggered by a YouTube video.

This is cut and dried — an administration caught peddling lies to cover up incompetence and worse. This isn’t complex. It’s Scandal 101.

But not according to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Occasionally, when I kid a liberal member of the media about how in the tank the national media are, I get an honest acknowledgement that this is undeniable.

But sometimes I get pushback. The last few weeks, whenever that has happened, I’ve sent along a transcript of ABC News’ coverage of the aftermath of the first debate. Why? To highlight George Stephanopolous’ “analysis”:

STEPHANOPOLOUS:  Does a tie go to the challenger?

Wow. The pivotal event that revived Mitt Romney and made this a very, very close election, and within minutes of its conclusion, ABC News is spinning it as a tie. Is Stephanopolous the Greek word for Maviglio?

But that’s just one journalist. The media’s de facto/tacit cover-up of the administration’s Benghazi cover-up involves literally dozens of journalists at many different institutions suddenly deciding to go soft on a debacle at the upper reaches of the U.S. government so as to protect the guilty. It’s a sad comment on American journalism.

And maybe I’m naive, but I still have been surprised by this. Benghazi, I thought, was too big a screw-up to be ignored. Even when they were inclined to be in the tank, there were standards, I thought, for the well-educated, highly paid, prideful Washington media.

Boy, was I wrong.