◼ The fix was in, and the Piers Morgan Network might as well change its slogan to, “CNN: What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?” - The Other McCain
No matter what the witnesses said, under no circumstance were the major news organizations that have spent the past five years as de facto members of the Obama campaign committee going to treat this hearing as actual news. In fact, the only TV reporter not employed by Fox News who has treated the Benghazi cover-up as a legitimate story — ◼ Sharyl Attkisson of CBS — is being treated like an unprofessional pariah by her own network, while Chuck Todd of NBC News quite literally laughs off criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks.
Really, they out-did themselves on this one. Check out the “Don’t Bother to Read This Dull Story” headline from the New York Times: ◼ Official Offers Account From Libya of Benghazi Attack
Here’s another way you might headline the story, if you actually wanted to get readers to, y’know, read the story: ◼ VIDEO: Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks Describes ‘Saddest Phone Call’ That Ambassador Stevens Died
Unless you saw that testimony — which was just one highlight of a six-hour hearing that the major networks did their best to ignore or dismiss as mere politics — you would have no reason to suspect how riveting it was, if all you saw was that bland New York Times headline.
◼ HOW DID REST OF THE MEDIA COVER IMPORTANT BENGHAZI HEARINGS? TAKE A LOOK - The Blaze
So, how did the mainstream media cover the story? Well, kind of like it has since the attack occurred — lightly. TheBlaze conducted a review of various outlets’ coverage on Wednesday night at around 8 p.m. CT and took screengrabs of several front pages and accumulated some video. Let’s just go outlet-by-outlet, print and TV, and analyze the coverage.... at the link
