Author Topic: Benghazi Blackout: How the Big Three Networks Have Censored or Spun Obama's Deadly Foreign Policy Failure  (Read 564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
Wednesday marks the one year anniversary of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead and sent the Obama administration scrambling for a cover story that the Big Three broadcast networks initially bought and were slow to unravel.

A similar pattern has emerged in 2013. As new information about the administration’s actions before and after the attacks have been revealed through congressional testimony, whistleblowers, and eyewitnesses, the Big Three have responded by censoring, breezing past or spinning politically damaging bombshells. (full special report after the jump)

From praising Hillary Clinton’s January testimony on Benghazi as a “fiery” “valedictory” to ignoring accusations of witness intimidation, the networks have, for the most part, operated as an arm of the White House PR machine. The only events that drew truly critical coverage were Gregory Hicks’ compelling testimony of the events of that tragic day and the release of e-mails that proved the administration had engaged in scrubbing CIA talking points. However these stories came in the midst of the intense but relatively brief period in May that the networks were forced to cover the myriad of scandals (IRS, AP, NSA) breaking all at once.

   But when it was revealed, in July, that Benghazi survivors, State Department and CIA employees were being forced to sign non-disclosure agreements the Big Three networks responded with a yawn, offering not one single story.

   The following is a chronological list of key developments in the Benghazi scandal and how they were covered or not covered on ABC’s World News, Good Morning America, CBS’s Evening News, This Morning, and NBC’s Nightly News and Today show.

Hillary’s ‘What Difference at This Point Does It Make?’ Hearing Performance Praised

On January 23 Hillary Clinton came before Congress to testify about her State Department’s bungling of Benghazi, and when pressed about how the administration misled about the causes of the raid coldly pronounced: “The fact is we have four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans. What difference, at this point, does it make?” The reaction of network anchors and reporters wasn’t to condemn the chilling dodge, but to herald it as a moment of righteous indignation.   

On the January 23 edition of ABC’s World News, anchor Diane Sawyer announced: “And now we turn to the fiery appearance for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton...The indignation, and then, the tears in her eyes...It was a valedictory that showed her indignation and emotion as she ends this tenure on the public stage.” Her colleague Martha Raddatz added: “What a way to end her four-year tenure as Secretary of State...a month a go, she was flat on her back with a nasty concussion,” but “today, this woman who has traveled the world as America’s top diplomat, came to the Hill ready for a fight.” Raddatz touted that Clinton was “in rare public form, at times angry, aggressively on the defense. At another point, choking up over her four lost colleagues.”

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams began his newscast that night announcing that Clinton “leaves her post as the most admired woman in the world in the Gallup poll, for the 11th year in a row.” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell offered a rave review: “Parrying hostile questions all day, Clinton was also the political pro. Massaging big egos, sidestepping attacks when she could. When she couldn’t, giving as good as she got.”

Over on CBS Margaret Brennan, on the January 23 This Morning, was impressed at how Clinton “fiercely defended the office that she will soon be leaving” and “took ownership of the State Department’s handling of the attack.”

Total Big Three Network stories/briefs: 23 (NBC 4 stories/5 briefs, CBS 5 stories/3 briefs, ABC 4 stories/2 briefs)

 

Panetta Testimony Reveals Obama Was Disengaged During Benghazi, ABC Ignores

More at link
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2013/09/09/benghazi-blackout-how-big-three-networks-have-censored-or-spun-oba#ixzz2eRxOFjBW

Offline mountaineer

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 35,053
That's why we have to read British newspapers:
Quote
US consulate attack in Benghazi: a challenge to official version of events

A year after the first US ambassador in 33 years was killed on duty, Chris Stephen, one of the first western reporters on the scene in Benghazi, pieces together what really happened from witness accounts, official reports, and the ruins of the compound

The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was striking for a number of reasons: the date, 11 September, the toll – four diplomats killed, including an ambassador – and the knock-on effects on the careers of senior American politicians.

But what is perhaps most striking is the inconsistencies: the US version of events compared with those of witnesses and the facts on the ground. The two do not tally. And so, a year later, there remain pressing questions about what happened that night – and what the Americans say happened. ...
More from The Guardian
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
--- Oscar Levant

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
I learned a few new things in the article. It's too bad US papers forgot what it's like to be journalists.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
I learned a few new things in the article. It's too bad US papers forgot what it's like to be journalists.

Why we cannot trust our government or media.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,967
Why we cannot trust our government or media.

You can't trust government, ever.
A real media helps make government accountable. A complicit media leads to tyranny.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf