Posted on 05/29/2013 5:01:06 AM PDT by SJackson
The other day, MSNBC’s Karen Finney was on her network discussing the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. After spending some time unsurprisingly downplaying the story’s significance, she attempted to validate her cavalier take on the controversy by stating the following:
“Everybody knew about this investigation long before the election. So, if they [Republicans] were that freaked out, why didn’t Romney make more of a big deal of it during the election?”
As the National Journal’s Ron Fournier quickly pointed out, Finney’s premise was false. While Darrell Issa and others in Congress were indeed aware of a potential investigation last year, there were no facts made available from the investigation prior to the 2012 election. The investigation itself wasn’t even confirmed until a couple of weeks ago. Thus, it’s pretty ridiculous for someone to claim that “everybody” knew about it, when very few people actually did.
This column isn’t about Finney’s inaccuracy, however. After all, that kind of thing isn’t all that surprising coming from an MSNBC host. No, this column is about the mindset Finney seems to share with several of her media colleagues.
Over the past nine months or so, we’ve seen an odd initiative set forth by journalists and commentators to justify the news media’s lack of interest in legitimate stories (specifically those surrounding Obama administration scandals) by criticizing how Republican politicians have reacted to those stories.
This kind of thing was particularly apparent during the early months of the Benghazi story. Initially, presidential candidate Mitt Romney was skewered by the media for having the nerve to publicly comment on the attack during the presidential campaign. They deemed his remarks to be shameless and politically-motivated. Disturbingly, Romney’s reaction to the Benghazi attack invoked more passion from the media than the actual murder of four American patriots in Benghazi did. Thus, it was somehow deemed acceptable to let the attack become a secondary story from the onset. The media’s loyalty toward President Obama kept it there – largely out of the mainstream headlines until just recently.
Interestingly, after Obama won re-election, some liberal commentators (including Fox News Channel’s Bob Beckel) began rationalizing the media’s continued lack of interest in the story by pointing to Romney’s failure to bring up the topic during the third and final presidential debate. In other words, if Romney didn’t make Benghazi a story, it didn’t deserve to be a story.
Now, I understand the assertion that Romney could have drawn more attention to the Benghazi scandal had he continued to bring up the topic during the presidential campaign. That may be true. But this notion that it was somehow Romney’s responsibility to play the role of a news producer and guide reporters through the duties of their jobs is absurd. Aside from the fact that it wouldn’t have worked (only Democrats are allowed to create mainstream media narratives), what Romney said or didn’t say should have had no bearing whatsoever on how Benghazi was covered.
Comedian Jon Stewart recently blamed the right for the media’s disinterest in Benghazi as well. On his Comedy Central show, Stewart suggested that the mainstream media would have taken the story seriously earlier on, had it not been the Fox News Channel who was pushing it hard for several months. His implication was that Fox often cries wolf when it comes to criticizing the Obama administration, thus it was understandable for other media outlets not to the follow their lead. Translation: Because Fox treated the story with heavy scrutiny, the rest of the media was right to keep its distance.
I know… It’s confusing. It’s almost as if the media took note of how successful President Obama has been at blaming Republicans for his failures, so they’re using the same strategy to explain away their own failures.
But honestly… I don’t think they’re that self-aware. I think they truly believe they’re offering up a valid defense.
Silly me. All this time, I was of the crazy impression that news organizations were supposed to function independently of the will of politicians, political interests, and other media outlets. I realize that in reality, our current media culture doesn’t quite work that way. Journalists play favorites, and bias (both subtle and blatant) exists everywhere. But I think we’ve broken new, disturbing ground when people in the media are actually comfortable justifying their omissions of valid news stories by pointing to their displeasure with the people who would prefer those stories be covered.
It should never matter who is fueling (or not fueling) a story. If a story is legitimate, it should be covered. If serious questions aren’t being answered by those in power, journalists should remain diligent in pursuing those answers. And if people in the media are using politicians’ behavior as a determinate for whether or not they should do their jobs, they have no business being in the profession in the first place.
The Republicans and Democrats are 2 wings of the one party, the party of Ivy League Incumbent Lawyers. And next election they will all be re-elected at a 90+% rate. Wail and moan all you like but until conservatives shake their entertainment addictions and start voting with their wallets in spite of inconveniences it will not change.
Geez, I never say anything nice about Romney, but -- he did try to bring up Benghazi during a debate didn't he? That was when the debate moderator (Candy Crowley) jumped in and attacked him and defended Obama by reading from a conveniently available transcript of the presidents remarks from the Rose Garden on Sept 12 2012.
Romney got a taste of that and may have decided that further efforts on his part were not going to do him much good.
But, yeah, if the media wants to pretend that they would have given the matter thorough coverage if only Romney had mentioned it, that's another approach, I suppose ...
Every non-LIEberal politician, pundit and American citizen should be, literally, shouting “IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH! RESIGN! RESIGN! RESIGN! in every venue every day!
ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!
In politics, as in love and war, being faint of heart is not a successful strategy or tactic.
If it is going to be, it is up to us to git ‘r done!
“And next election they will all be re-elected at a 90+% rate. “
And Bachmann has dropped out, so we’ll get another idiot from Minnie Soda. Didn’t Al have a “comic” partner? Maybe he can run?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/29/bachmann/2368527/
Romney did a good job of destroying any other Republicans who ran against him. He did a good job in the first debate.
Then he laid down and never got back up.
After the first debate something or someone got to him.
But he wasn’t much to begin with.
You have a point there. In Ill-annoy we call it the Combine. It’s the combination of status quo Democrats (steady state) and WIIFM Republicans (appears to be a learned behavior due to constant reelection and personal retirement needs).
But, let’s not write off the entire GOP. For the first time in the House the RSC (the conservative wing of the GOP) is in the majority of the majority. We need more GOPers of their stripe, not less. The bigger the majority the easier it is to pass your agenda.
And, we’re up against a pro-government, pro-statist juggernaut few American know of and even fewer who comprehend it. Keep in mind that for every billion you want to cut, there is a recipient group waiting to recieve that money. How much would you pay for a discounted cash flow of a billion over the next 20 years?
Toss in the bureaucrats, crony capitalists, government schools, and then the media who gets paid to undermine liberty and you’ve got a pretty daunting task.
Don’t give up on the GOP. They’re moving in the right direction. We need to bring the Senate around and they’re coming.
Ping
You can not allow your political opposition an essential part of which is the media to run your campaign. Ignoring or playing down any assertion no matter how subtle gives them viability. If the media sides with the opposition the candidate has to have not only the fortitude but the responsibility to not only challange those assertions but to direct part of their campaign against those making them.
Why the hell doesn’t the right simply get together and BUY one of the MSM, lock stock and barrel?
Kick out the lefties, and run with the RIGHT side of the news?
FOX goes halfway (and is backsliding BIG TIME), and kicks ass in the ratings. This could be done on the CHEAP, with just a little organization.
All that’s needed is a buncha $$$$$$$$—and not that much.
Only losers and low IQ hacks go to journalism school these days.
I’m sure most Republicans are all in favor of Obama’s little IRS vendetta against the Tea Party.
Because Romney was a ringer like McCain. He was there to make sure no serious candidate got the GOP nomination and then took a dive in the general to put Barry in the White House.
Nice take. I been yelling about Romney's monumental failure to nail Obama on another critical issue.
2012 Obama bragged that he was so popular, campaign contributions were raining down on him, and that he was the first billion dollar candidate. Later O whined about having to "borrow" to continue the campaign.
Huh?
Where did all the money go? Romney should have demanded O's FEC reports be released. He let it slide as he did so many other potent campaign issues.
Romney decided it was a good idea to follow in McCain’s loser tatics of coddling the little Muslim commie.
I always thought the moderator having that transcript on hand was odd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.