And now Reuters…
…joins the crew of media outlets on the left that seems to be willing to report some of the truth about the Benghazi attacks and the administration coverup that has followed.
As I’ve written before, something about this incident has motivated some MSM sources usually in the administration’s pocket to go against the tide. I’m not sure why, although I’ve speculated that it may be because they know most people don’t care enough about it to change their vote. But if you have any other and better ideas, please feel free to voice them here.
Another, though not necessarily better, idea is that the MSM are hedging their bets against the possibility of a Romney win. Given their performance to date, a hypothetical Romney administration and a Republican controlled house would have every reason to cut the MSM off at the knees, both in terms of access and in terms of favorable tax treatment.
Maybe the MSM is (finally) offended because this particular incident has a body count. It’s all fun and games when it’s politics – name calling (racist!), “gaffes”, and Obama scoring political points against the Republicans.
These murders – and the real possibility of Stevenson’s torture – are disturbing. Obama and Hillary played politics while standing in front of the murdered diplomat’s caskets. Now it’s been uncovered that they not only knew it was terrorism as they stood there blaming a video, but these murders happened because they ignored repeated requests for security, and repeated warnings of terrorist plan.
Journalists may be partisan, but they’re still human beings. And what Obama and Hillary have done is cold, unsettling.
It appears to me that there’s just too much evidence to ignore (and new, ever more damning evidence continues to emerge).
This has all the elements of a “great news story”: dramatic images, murders, possible rapes, screaming mobs of savages, exotic-famous locales, international intrigue, cloak and dagger action, dramatic news conferences and appearances by nervous, sweaty-palmed officials who are obviously lying, scapegoats galore, impending mega-important election, etc. etc.
Factually and atmospherically, it’s a reporter’s dream.
Plus, it’s just so damned obvious that there’s an ongoing coverup.
I can’t really put my finger on it yet, but there is something going on here with the MSM that reminds me of the the way they acted during the OJ case. Not as prevalent or universal perhaps, but something about this is similar. I’ll have to ponder it a bit.
Perhaps, some in the news media are realizing that their lies (or at least supporting Obama’s lies) are/will cost them “insider information” from those within the State Department, DoD, etc.
Afterall, Amb. Stevens and the others killed are their own and those folks don’t like it when their own are used for politcal gain in such a sneaky way – so they just might not be so willing to help those “lying” reporters get the next “inside scoop.”
It is curious that there is some desire in the MSM to delve into the attack in Benghazi as it highlights the incompetency of Team Obama. It may well be as Charles notes that they do identify with the victims and thus are sympathetic. Too bad their meager scrutiny into Benghazi does not include a little attention to Fast & Furious. I guess the difference is that with F&F the victims were only a lowly border patrol agent and dozens of Mexicans.
Don’t forget that from the very beginning the British press has done thorough reporting, long before the US MSM did much more than repeat the Obama administration’s talking points.
I think the reported “abuse” of the ambassador has turned up the heat a little.