I watched the video, and I’m gonna bookmark it. I have sent the link to a daughter living in State College, Pa.The great difficulty is that the video is a “talking head” exercise, and the “heads” talk about things that would require study to really validate their points. I am willing to follow the argument, because I am suspicious of journalism as an institution and thus open to the possibility that the journalists - and their followers, chiefly but not exclusively "liberals,” - have got it all wrong. Again. As they did in the Duke Lacrosse “scandal,” and so many other uproars which journalism creates out of whole cloth.
We have just had a disastrous election, in which our turnout was successfully suppressed and, if I have it straight, Romney got even fewer votes than John McCain did. All while a flaming Benghazi catastrophe is stonewalled by all of journalism except Fox News. We were defeated by journalism. Note that that assumes that journalism is a single institution, which seems fantastic. But it is perfectly true:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of nations, Book I, Ch 10. . . and the AP (or any other wire service), whatever else it is, is a continuous virtual “meeting” of “people of the same trade” of journalism. Which means that journalism outlets are as cooperative as they are competitive. And more so.
As churlish as it will seem to “rehash” Benghazi immediately after the reelection of Obama, it is vital that this be done. Not with a view to impeaching the president in the aftermath of his reelection, but as a means of attacking wire service journalism. The FCC and the broadcast journalists should be called to account over this. Broadcast journalism, which is licensed and even promoted by the FCC as if it were a public good, has functioned to systematically suppress a scandal which had obvious bearing on a presidential election. I want the FCC commissioners to answer the question of whether that behavior has any relation to objectivity. And if they admit that it did not, they would have to answer as to what sanctions those collusive journalists and their licensed broadcasters face. Of course they cannot admit that, so it will boil down to simply another cause celebre' of Talk Radio and the Internet. But it must at least be that.Benghazi was systematically suppressed during the “debates” - with “neutral” moderators systematically taking the Democrat side and turning what should have been a slam dunk case for the Republicans into a seemingly baseless charge. Not forgetting that CBS had the goods on Obama, and suppressed it. Should CBS affiliates’ FCC licenses be revoked, and assigned to Fox News? Why not?NBC’s reporter - and former Clinton political operative - George Stephanopolis launched the Democrats' “Republican War on Women” meme by asking a question of the Republican candidates for the Republican nomination about birth control. That could arguably be an issue in a general election campaign, but was not a subject of contention within the Republican Party. Should there be any consequences for Mr. Stephanopolis’ career working for an FCC-licensed entity?? Why not?
I am constantly amazed at the way Benghazi is framed, even by conservatives. Yes, the net result of the administration’s maladroit if not malevolent handling of the incident was the death of the Ambassador and three others. But the issue the White House thought it was addressing was not the fate of four Americans but more like forty. It was apparently only the valor of men who disobeyed orders which prevented the much larger casualty toll. Some, at least, of whom were among the dead. Were any of the survivors also in valiant disobedience of orders? And if so what should, and what will, be the effect on their careers?
Hillary, like Janet Reno in re Waco, “took responsibility.” What should, and what will, be the effect on her career?
BTTT