You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
An undiplomatic dispute erupts between the State Department and CNN.
The government may indeed have its foggy bottom. But far too many journalists these days have become self-involved primadonnas, even at the local level. They sanctimoniously posture themselves as working for the good of the community. But they are far too often, just working for a promotion or a Pulitzer. To my mind, journalists are leeches, right down there with the other bottom-suckers like attorneys and politicians. All three of those professions constantly make a big point to tell us that they work for US ... notice the similarity?
CNN has a duty to report facts to the citizenry. They are doing their job. (finally?) This is just another distraction, created by....the State Department. Isn't that the same outfit that spent the first week after the attack lying about it? So, why should we believe them now? Just another distraction. I hope Americans are paying attention to how their government is lying to them...and watching the journalists who are aiding and abetting them.
Two significant facts came out of this. First, post-attack the U.S. never secured the consulate, and in the course of its investigation has never put investigators on the ground in Benghazi. Second, the ambassador was concerned about organized violence and the threat it posed to him personally. Both of these facts tend to demonstrate that the State Department security posture was lax, and that subsequent "explanations" by the Secretary of State and others may have been primarily motived by a desire to cover up the lax security. The family has the ambassador's property. The newsworthy information content has been passed on to the public in a responsible way. Hard to fault CNN. Easy to fault the State Department.
I remember a day long long ago, when the media was trusted to do the right thing with the likes of Cronkite and Chancellor and Brinkley etc. The list is long. I hear a lot of people base their decision on the questions "What would Jesus do?" Maybe, in this case, some CNN executive should ask "What would Cronkite do?" I look at today's journalism, and see a whisper of those days gone by. I remember when you could almost trust the president of the USA and when he appeared on TV, you listened. I did not question much and paid the price like everyone else, as we learned that, heaven forbid, the "facts" from Vietnam were an embellishment at best; downright lies at worst and tell me, who blindly reported those facts? Now we live in what I call the Carl Rove era of reporting. CNN, like all others, has to make their decisions, but investigative reporting has now pretty much ended, and my personal frustration, is the canned messages we get from everywhere these days, without a simple, logical idea called a "follow up question." Who should you trust today? Yourself, and that is about it.
Obama and his regime have repeatedly lied to us about the embassy attack. The coverup is over. If it takes CNN tgo expose the lies then they are doing us a favor.
"Obama and his regime have repeatedly lied to us about the embassy attack. " .... President Obama called it an act of terrorism the very next day. A measured initial response is much better than the "shoot from the hip" mentality displayed by Romney. Reporting only on the Ambassador's concerns is part of the story. Perhaps his journal also included what was being done about it but we'd never know because the media has become more invested in getting the scoop. And the more sensational the better for ratings.
---"The consulate was not secured; they didn't steal it,"... It wasn't theirs - of course they stole it. It belonged to the estate of the deceased... What the reporter did is no different than someone going into a tornado ravaged area before the police get there and taking jewelry or private papers or a screen door they can use at home because they find it interesting or useful... It was NOT their property and they took it - no further discussion is required. The reporter should be arrested for theft.
"First, post-attack the U.S. never secured the consulate,"... don't suppose you considered that it was a consulate, not an embassy, and the consulate security staff was killed and wounded while moving the Ambassador to the safe house? How exactly do you secure a consulate when the people who are on site to do that are dead and wounded?
" A measured initial response is much better than the "shoot from the hip" mentality displayed by Romney".
The shoot from the hip mentality is best illustrated by the obama regime fabricating a lie calling it a reaction to a movie that no one saw. A measured response would have been to say nothing until the facts were known.
"The shoot from the hip mentality is best illustrated by the obama regime fabricating a lie calling it a reaction to a movie that no one saw. " .... the demonstrations were in reaction to the movie. Why else would they still be demonstrating about it? And it had only recently been translated. The extremists took advantage of it. Really not that hard to believe. Well, unless your only interested in criticizing President Obama. Then the denial of reality becomes imperative.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks