The other benghazi scandal: Journalists worry covering the attack threatens white hou
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The other benghazi scandal: Journalists worry covering the attack threatens white hou

  1. #1

    The other benghazi scandal: Journalists worry covering the attack threatens white hou

    THE OTHER BENGHAZI SCANDAL: JOURNALISTS WORRY COVERING THE ATTACK THREATENS WHITE HOUSE ACCESS

    By: Mediaite.com | News & Opinion | Media: TV, Print, Online, Jobs, Ranking

    As the one year anniversary of the deadly attack on an American consulate in Benghazi approaches, journalists have begun to take another look into the scandal surrounding the government’s response to that terrorist event. Last week, CNN aired two striking reports revealing that the Central Intelligence Agency had a large number of agents on the ground on the night of the attack and that a suspect in the attack has never been interviewed by investigators. Following these revelatory reports, which some in President Barack Obama’s administration believe represent a political threat, some CNN reporters now fear for their access to the White House. They are not alone.

    On July 31, CNN’s The Situation Room broadcast a portion of an interview conducted by reporter Arwa Damon with a suspect in the Benghazi attacks. The suspect revealed to Damon that no investigator has attempted to contact him regarding his involvement in that deadly assault. The following day, CNN’s Drew Griffin broke the news that more than 30 CIA agents were on the ground in Libya on the day of the attack and they are being pressured by the spy agency to not reveal to reporters or congressional investigators what they know of the events of that night. Some CNN reporters are reportedly fearful now that their access to the White House will be hampered following their probing into a story that members of the Obama administration would prefer remain uninvestigated.

    “Access is a very serious consideration when it comes to stories that could adversely impact a show, correspondent, or network’s relationship with the administration, a campaign, or any political leader,” one source with insider information told Mediaite.

    “I would suggest it’s not an accident that those who have been given a lot of access to the president have generally been AWOL when it comes to stories that might reflect poorly on him,” the source, who did not wish to be identified, continued. “It’s the name of the game. And it’s bad for everyone trying to do this job the right way.” Those reporters have reason to fear for their access to America’s executive branch. Some suspect that reporters who soft-pedal or underreport stories uncomfortable to the administration receive preferential access to White House officials.

    On September 12, 2012, less than 24-hours after the attack on the American consulate, President Obama sat down with CBS News reporter Steve Kroft for an in-depth interview on 60 Minutes. A critical portion of that interview, however, was omitted from broadcast only to be released online the Friday before the election. In that unaired portion of the interview, the president appeared to hedge about whether to declare that attack an act of terrorism.

    CBS’s decision to hold this portion of the interview became a focus of speculation because, during an explosive presidential debate against Mitt Romney, Obama declared with much more force that he had always regarded the Benghazi attack as a terrorist event.

    Some believe it was no coincidence that the president chose 60 Minutes to sit down with outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an exit interview in January – one of several that she gave to every network news operation.

    Unlike in the exit interviews on the other networks, the 60 Minutes interview’s focus on Benghazi – coming just days after Clinton testified before Congress about her department’s actions leading up to and following the attack – was decidedly limited.

    “I want to talk about the hearings this week,” Kroft began.

    “You had a very long day. Also, how is your health?” He digressed.

    “As the New York Times put it, you accepted responsibility, but not blame,” Kroft asked in a follow up to the above grilling. “Do you feel guilty in any way, in– at a personal level? Do you blame yourself that you didn’t know or that you should have known?”

    Both Clinton’s and the president’s response to this question was clinical, lawyerly, and retrospective. Of course, they were able to take this tone because the nature of the question implied that the Benghazi story was a closed book. Today, though, the persistent uncovering of new details relating to the federal response to that attack shows definitively that the Benghazi story is not yet fully understood.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. #2
    There is a web site called the Conservative Report run by Doug Ross. Doug maintains that Valerie Jarrett gave the order to stand down. I have told a number of my friends from day one that I believed that Jarrett gave that order. She, on three occasions tried to stop the killing of Bin Laden. I have thought that she is the the one who is making all the decisions coming out of the WH. She even has her own Secret Service detail. Jarrett is ONLY an adviser but between Jarrett and MS obummer our "dear leader" can not make a move without their approval!!!!

    Now that is the "phoney" scandal!!!! A person not in the chain of command given in the US Constitution is running things and getting people killed!!!!

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Topeka, KS
    Posts
    185
    How many of these same "newsmen"' or "newswomen" would have or did worry one iota about how criticizing Nixon for Watergate would affect their access to him. And the whole story was about some bungling criminals trying to gain political advantage and covering it up. NO ONE DIED.
    -----Instead, as more details of the way this administration operates is known, likely criminal actions were conducted by computer geeks for obummer in several ways. Also, it appears, they tended to misrepresent themselves to prospective voters to get them to vote for BO, which possibly was enough to win several states for BO. This, on top of Fast and Furious which has resulted in an least one US Border Agent's death and possibly others and an elected Mexican leader and hundreds of innocent Mexicans (and possibly some cartel members) dead. Add Benghazi to the mix and this admistration is, in at least some measure, complicit in the deaths of numerous people.
    -----Yet, when evidence comes up that cannot be ignored, pointing toward the administration's role in deaths and cover up after cover up, their concern is whether that will hurt their access to the President! How moronic is there even a discussion on whether it is the right or wrong thing to do to actually report the news accurately, regardless of where it leads. I would be ok if no media source had "access" to the president as long as they did their job actually reporting the news with the same vigor as the reporters did for Watergate. Unlike Nixon's misdeeds that drove him from office, people died over the scandals tied to this administration, even if the President and his mouthpiece want to label them "false" to try to escape any responsibility for anything.
    -----As for Valerie Jarrett calling the shots on most things, I believe it highly likely. Prior to the staged appearances by this POTUS during the 2008 primaries and general election, where has there been any evidence of him making any major decision totally on his own? In the Illnois Legislature, he was more likely to take no position on bills than to actually make a decision to stand for something. The only exception to this string of "no decisions" was his arguments that it was ok to kill a baby born alive during an abortion. He was an Organizer, not a Manager. The fact that almost a year after Benghazi, no one will say where the POTUS was during the 7 hours of the attack! Mighty curious. I think the only decisions he makes now is when he wants to go golfing or something else that has no bearing on running a country. All he can do is campaign, as long as he has his trusty teleprompter. (Remember the time in the last year, there was a mixup and he had to wing it. I have heard 12 year olds do a better job of making a speech than that.) Maybe he decides what flavor of spread to have on his toast, but it likely wouldn't be strawberry as that could be too close to "red state."
    Dave "The said Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast