Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I haven't seen anyone discuss these two events, so I figured I'll throw it up here...

But here's the thing.... I'm reading various news feeds/streaming video from the Benghazi hearing, which is an investigation into what may be a massive government cover-up at the highest levels of our government, and the verdict from the Jodi Arias trial.

Most of the networks are not even carrying the Benghazi hearing at this point, despite the fact that the allegations aired in it are so disturbing.

This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.

I don't really care about either of them.

The problem with Benghazi is that all the people where the buck stops at: Obama, Clinton are termed out or already retired, and I truly don't care about the "talking points" nonsense. It was a lie...and?

Ugh, I can't wait for the Arias trial to be over. The only channel on the break room TV is HLN, and they've been talking about that bullgak for months now. I'm tired of it. How can someone say that stabbing someone 27 times, slashing their throat, and then shooting them in the head is self-defense. I'm so done with it!!!

Lets talk more about Blues hockey and Cards baseball

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't really care about either of them.

The problem with Benghazi is that all the people where the buck stops at: Obama, Clinton are termed out or already retired, and I truly don't care about the "talking points" nonsense. It was a lie...and?

Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now. It does disgust me a bit though, since my biggest concern about all of this was that it was done to cover their asses for the re-election.

Complete and total lack of integrity. That infuriates me.

 mega_bassist wrote:
Ugh, I can't wait for the Arias trial to be over. The only channel on the break room TV is HLN, and they've been talking about that bullgak for months now. I'm tired of it. How can someone say that stabbing someone 27 times, slashing their throat, and then shooting them in the head is self-defense. I'm so done with it!!!

I hear ya... I generally stick with CNN and they're just as bad...

Lets talk more about Blues hockey and Cards baseball

Cards just beat the Cubs today! And LETS GO BLUES! (they're playing tonight)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't really care about either of them.

The problem with Benghazi is that all the people where the buck stops at: Obama, Clinton are termed out or already retired, and I truly don't care about the "talking points" nonsense. It was a lie...and?

Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now.

Eh... I wouldn't say that... the Clintons made their career being "teflon".

It does disgust me a bit though, since my biggest concern about all of this was that it was done to cover their asses for the re-election.

Complete and total lack of integrity. That infuriates me.

I completely agree with you there... that's why *I* was pissed that Bush kept Rumsfeld around after Abu Gharib.

Back to OP: The media and Democrat leaning pundits (I repeat myself): Bush/Rumsfeld personally reponsible for midnight shift at Abu Gharib which necessitated numerous media attention... but, Obama/Clinton not responsible for their politically-motivated actions on 9/11/12? Not so much...

 djones520 wrote:
Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now. It does disgust me a bit though, since my biggest concern about all of this was that it was done to cover their asses for the re-election.

Complete and total lack of integrity. That infuriates me.

Yup. They kicked the ball into the long grass so they wouldn't have to worry about it during election time, now that they might be compelled to explain any inconsistencies etc. there aren't any real ramifications for some of those higher up.

 whembly wrote:

Back to OP: The media and Democrat leaning pundits (I repeat myself): Bush/Rumsfeld personally reponsible for midnight shift at Abu Gharib which necessitated numerous media attention... but, Obama/Clinton not responsible for their politically-motivated actions on 9/11/12? Not so much...

Did the entirety of the "media" claim that Bush and Rumsfeld were personally responsible for Abu Ghraib, or do you just feel that way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now.

If she does run she will be 69 if elected.

The jokes are many, and low-hanging.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Back to OP: The media and Democrat leaning pundits (I repeat myself): Bush/Rumsfeld personally reponsible for midnight shift at Abu Gharib which necessitated numerous media attention... but, Obama/Clinton not responsible for their politically-motivated actions on 9/11/12? Not so much...

Did the entirety of the "media" claim that Bush and Rumsfeld were personally responsible for Abu Ghraib, or do you just feel that way?

Did you pay attention at-all during this time?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now.

If she does run she will be 69 if elected.

The jokes are many, and low-hanging.

heh...funny.

But, still... I'd still say she'd be the (D) candidate and she'd win imo.

 whembly wrote:
I haven't seen anyone discuss these two events, so I figured I'll throw it up here...

But here's the thing.... I'm reading various news feeds/streaming video from the Benghazi hearing, which is an investigation into what may be a massive government cover-up at the highest levels of our government, and the verdict from the Jodi Arias trial.

Most of the networks are not even carrying the Benghazi hearing at this point, despite the fact that the allegations aired in it are so disturbing.

This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.

What you've done there is decide, personally, that Benghazi is a really big deal, and then use that as evidence that the media must be biased because it isn't covering it.

Reality is that Benghazi isn't being covered because it just doesn't rate. The Republicans have utterly failed in convincing the population that the people in charge did anything really wrong in any kind of shocking manner*, or that it has any relevance to their lives.

I mean, think about this. Remember the Clinton blow job trial. It was some stupid, irrelevant bs, but that was covered 24/7 for years. Anyone trying to claim evidence of anti-Democrat bias in the media then would be as wrong as you are now - that issue was lurid and exciting in a way that splicing apart sentence by sentence transcripts of what people said about Benghazi just isn't. The media runs with what's exciting. And so the Arias thing gets a run, and Benghazi doesn't.

I mean, right now I think the real issue of the day is the unbelievable stupidity of austerity, on both sides of the pond there remains dangerous numbers of politicians and influential people pretending there's any merit to austerity at all. But you see basically no media coverage of that at all. I could claim that's because there's a massive bias towards austerity in the media, or I could recognise that highly technical academic arguments, even when they have more of an effect on people's lives than anything else going on today... just don't get popular media coverage, because that isn't how the media works.

So stop looking for this liberal media bias. It isn't there, and looking for it is getting you confused about what the media actually is and how it operates




*I mean yeah, some people played with words in misleading ways. Like politicians do daily, especially when they're trying to control on-going situations. It's both not that big a deal and really damn boring.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I haven't seen anyone discuss these two events, so I figured I'll throw it up here...

But here's the thing.... I'm reading various news feeds/streaming video from the Benghazi hearing, which is an investigation into what may be a massive government cover-up at the highest levels of our government, and the verdict from the Jodi Arias trial.

Most of the networks are not even carrying the Benghazi hearing at this point, despite the fact that the allegations aired in it are so disturbing.

This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.

What you've done there is decide, personally, that Benghazi is a really big deal, and then use that as evidence that the media must be biased because it isn't covering it.

I disagree... on the one hand you have a really brutal murder case that is sensationalized in the traditional media. Right?

On the other hand... 4 American died on what seems to be at best, incompetence somewhere in the administration, and at worst an active cover up in order to protect Obama's reputation during his re-election campaign.

Reality is that Benghazi isn't being covered because it just doesn't rate. The Republicans have utterly failed in convincing the population that the people in charge did anything really wrong in any kind of shocking manner*, or that it has any relevance to their lives.

IMO, I think you're wrong. Check out the transcripts in today's meeting. Here's some bullet points:
1. Two "stand-down" orders were given while the Benghazi attacks were in progress.
2. The "protest" about a YouTube video was a complete fabrication by the Obama administration.
3. Cheryl Mills, Clinton's lawyer at the State Department, told witnesses not to speak to House investigators.
4. Democrats came to rebut the eyewitnesses with talking points. Seriously, read up on that... they very rarely asked any direct questions to the witnesses.
5. One of the witnesses was actually demoted after questioning the administration's response.
6. Let me reiterate again, The whistleblowers were intimidated into silence.
7. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on-the-ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway.
8. Again, the highest ranking Libyan diplomat (Mr. Hicks) on the ground was "was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed,” after hearing the ensuing response.

To emulate Biden: It's a big fething deal!

I mean, think about this. Remember the Clinton blow job trial. It was some stupid, irrelevant bs, but that was covered 24/7 for years. Anyone trying to claim evidence of anti-Democrat bias in the media then would be as wrong as you are now - that issue was lurid and exciting in a way that splicing apart sentence by sentence transcripts of what people said about Benghazi just isn't. The media runs with what's exciting. And so the Arias thing gets a run, and Benghazi doesn't.

I really think you don't get the American Media much in Oz... do you? Because that does just jive man.

I mean, right now I think the real issue of the day is the unbelievable stupidity of austerity, on both sides of the pond there remains dangerous numbers of politicians and influential people pretending there's any merit to austerity at all.

Yeah, that's dumb...

But you see basically no media coverage of that at all. I could claim that's because there's a massive bias towards austerity in the media, or I could recognise that highly technical academic arguments, even when they have more of an effect on people's lives than anything else going on today... just don't get popular media coverage, because that isn't how the media works.

Say wut? Isn't the Sequestration a form of austerity? (even though, it's technically not). But, we're getting gak ton of coverage of the problems in EU.

So stop looking for this liberal media bias. It isn't there, and looking for it is getting you confused about what the media actually is and how it operates

Seriously... SERIOUSLY?
r
Let me try something simple... okay?

So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.
Conversely, the CIA correctly stated that Benghazi was a TERRORIST attacked, yet somehow, by SOMEONE, the talking points were edited to place blame on some anti-Islam youtube director. MEDIA response? OMG, we need to get this youtube director!

Honestly, don't you see a difference? I really think that your hatred/disgust of the Republican party is blinding you of what's going on here.

*I mean yeah, some people played with words in misleading ways. Like politicians do daily, especially when they're trying to control on-going situations. It's both not that big a deal and really damn boring.

So you really think it's "okay" that politics was involved on how they handled Benghazi? That's the real issue... WHO made the decision to blame that youtube director? Why was this the major deflection for more than two weeks after the fact?

So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.

You're confusing a political slogan thrown around at rallies with a "media response". The media almost unilaterally bought into the Iraq war hype, and very few people in the media accused the administration of having been deliberately deceptive. It took several years for the truth to come out that there was never any concrete evidence.

Yeah, I have to agree with Sebster, overall.

 whembly wrote:

Did you pay attention at-all during this time?

Yes, I was even attending a college where everyone that was politically engaged* actually did blame Bush for everything. And while a great many media outlets did personally blame members of the Bush Administration for Abu Ghraib it was hardly a unified front, nor is it ever, as the "media" is not a singular organization.

I mean, I don't deny that Abu Ghraib received far more media attention than Benghazi has, but recall that it wasn't a significant story until graphic images of the conduct of the relevant soldiers became public. Images that involved the explicit mistreatment of prisoners, not just the remains of a building. It is much easier to sell a story predicated on images of US soldiers forcing prisoners to masturbate than it is to sell one based on what is essentially indistinguishable from any other image of rubble. As I've said before, Benghazi isn't getting significant media coverage any longer because it simply isn't a compelling story. Indeed, the comparison to the Arias trial is apt, because that isn't getting much coverage either.




*As in everyone except the 11 people (including myself) that were members of the College Republicans.

SHould have thrown in Obamacare to. I do believe a nightmare about to happen.

 whembly wrote:
I disagree... on the one hand you have a really brutal murder case that is sensationalized in the traditional media. Right?

On the other hand... 4 American died on what seems to be at best, incompetence somewhere in the administration, and at worst an active cover up in order to protect Obama's reputation during his re-election campaign.

You keep just asserting that there is this absolute, unquestionable reality that there was incompetence that led to those deaths, and likely a cover up afterwards. And I put it to you that that is not the public perception, and for that reason

Now, if you disagree, well then it's up to you to put it in a way that's clear, concise and actually believable. And when you do it, send that stuff right over the Republicans leading this inquiry, because they've utterly failed to do it, and that's why no-one gives a gak.

And yeah, you posted a series of bullet points, but each is either debatable claims, nothing like the smoking gun you need to actually make this relevant, or just fething pointless (seriously, claiming the video was related after the fact doesn't change one fething thing about what actually happened).

I really think you don't get the American Media much in Oz... do you? Because that does just jive man.

We do actually. We get a bunch of ABC news and a whole bunch of stuff like Meet the Pess on free to air, and on pay TV we get CNN and FOX. And it's all viewable on-line.

And more to the point - you don't think that sensationalism drives the American media? fething seriously?

Say wut? Isn't the Sequestration a form of austerity? (even though, it's technically not). But, we're getting gak ton of coverage of the problems in EU.

Yeah, sequestration is related to austerity, in that most of the people driving it through are doing so out of the mistaken belief that the deficit is primary issue in the US economy right now.

And yeah, there's plenty of coverage of Europe's economic problems (and here in Oz we're also getting plenty of coverage of your on-going economic malaise as well). But the point is that just describing the blow by blow events (GDP in someplace goes down, bailout package some other place rejected etc) is so superficial as to be almost entirely pointless.

The real story here, the one that really matters, is that faced with the recession, the leaders of Europe listened to a bunch of advisors who made a series of predictions and so put in place a number of policies... and every one of those predictions turned out wrong, and those policies have only made the recovery harder. And having seen that, the response has been to carry on with those policies.

So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.

Uh, actually there was a great deal of interference of the Bush admin in those CIA reports. You had Rove and Cheney actually going in to the offices of junior analysts and asking what elements of images could possibly be evidence of WMD facilities.

In fact, the reporting of the investigations in to all that in the wake of the failure to find WMDs is the classic example of a huge story that got nothing like the media attention it deserved. And it got nothing like the attention it deserved because ultimately it was just a lot of people going on record, saying their little bits and pieces over the course of months, even years, until finally the full story is known long after the whole thing is, in the mind of the public, done and dusted.

And that, simply in terms of the number of dead Americans, was miles more important than Benghazi, and yet it was such a media non-issue you seem entirely unaware of it to this day. Now there's two competing explanations for why it might have happened;

1) The whembly 'liberal media' theory... which runs in to problems when you consider this was a story that made the Bush admin look terrible.
2) The sebster 'exciting stories get covered, and that means stuff that's immediately understandable and shocking and not stories slowly pieced together over a year of testimony, to reveal something we're still not completely sure about' theory... which accounts pretty well for why the Clinton blowjob impeachment shambles and the kid who was pretending to be in the weather balloon ran 24/7, and also accounts for Benghazi, and the CIA WMD story didn't.

So you really think it's "okay" that politics was involved on how they handled Benghazi? That's the real issue... WHO made the decision to blame that youtube director? Why was this the major deflection for more than two weeks after the fact?

Do I think it is okay? No, political interference is never okay. Do I think it's meaningfully different than the kind of thing that goes on every single day? Unfortunately not really.

I mean, what about Pat Tillman? That guy left pro football to serve his country and fight in Afghanistan, where he was tragically killed by friendly fire. The military covered up the friendly fire incident, and instead ran with a story that claimed he died facing intense enemy fire. This bs story included telling other men in the unit to lie about the incident to Tillman's family at the funeral. And yeah, plenty of intimidation from higher ups to junior staff about what they were allowed to say to the media then as well.

And yet that story didn't run 24/7. And years later it's basically forgotten.

And at this point you can keep shouting 'liberal media' or you can start to realise that the media just runs what we want to hear, and ultimately stories of murky, complex 'kind of sort of' cover ups just don't rate that well.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't really care about either of them.

The problem with Benghazi is that all the people where the buck stops at: Obama, Clinton are termed out or already retired, and I truly don't care about the "talking points" nonsense. It was a lie...and?

Well it can, and most likely will, destroy any chance that Clinton has of running for President now. It does disgust me a bit though, since my biggest concern about all of this was that it was done to cover their asses for the re-election.

Complete and total lack of integrity. That infuriates me.

I agree completely on both counts. Having said that, the election has occurred. Lets bring it to light, leanr the lessons, wack anyone still in employ, and move on. We're still in the Great recession and the politicians are dancing around playing "don't pay attention to this, pay attention to that" BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE CLUE HOW TO FIX IT.

Benghazi! This will be bigger than Watergate!

 Mannahnin wrote:

So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.

You're confusing a political slogan thrown around at rallies with a "media response".

Eh... okay, I went overboard there I'll admit... it was sloppy of me.

The media almost unilaterally bought into the Iraq war hype, and very few people in the media accused the administration of having been deliberately deceptive. It took several years for the truth to come out that there was never any concrete evidence.

It took several years to confirm that... but I disagree with the "media almost unilaterally" bought into the Iraq war hype bit there Ragnar... sure, the media was all over reporting (supportingly) during the inital War (what 2-weeks?). But, when we started the "occupation", that's when it turned ugly.

Yeah, I have to agree with Sebster, overall.

It's cool to have discourse... We all have differing opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
SHould have thrown in Obamacare to. I do believe a nightmare about to happen.

That's a whole different thread dude... o.O

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree... on the one hand you have a really brutal murder case that is sensationalized in the traditional media. Right?

On the other hand... 4 American died on what seems to be at best, incompetence somewhere in the administration, and at worst an active cover up in order to protect Obama's reputation during his re-election campaign.

You keep just asserting that there is this absolute, unquestionable reality that there was incompetence that led to those deaths, and likely a cover up afterwards. And I put it to you that that is not the public perception, and for that reason

That's the fething POINT I'm trying to make! Public perception isn't what's driving the mainstream media. Let me reiterate in my original OP: This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.

Now, if you disagree, well then it's up to you to put it in a way that's clear, concise and actually believable. And when you do it, send that stuff right over the Republicans leading this inquiry, because they've utterly failed to do it, and that's why no-one gives a gak.

I'm sorry... so you believe beyond the shadow of doubt, that everything is honky-dory?

And yeah, you posted a series of bullet points, but each is either debatable claims, nothing like the smoking gun you need to actually make this relevant, or just fething pointless

Those whistleblowers were on the fething GROUND in Libya and are UNDER OATH. The have just a little bit credibility and deserve as much than you outrightly dismissing them.

(seriously, claiming the video was related after the fact doesn't change one fething thing about what actually happened).

I beg to fething differ. Politico (warning... a generally centrist website), had this to say on just that very issue:

I really think you don't get the American Media much in Oz... do you? Because that does just jive man.

We do actually. We get a bunch of ABC news and a whole bunch of stuff like Meet the Pess on free to air, and on pay TV we get CNN and FOX. And it's all viewable on-line.

Interesting... cool. Sorta off topic, but why ya'll call Australia "Oz"?? Is it because of how ya'll enunciate that "Aust"-ralia as "Oz"? o.O

And more to the point - you don't think that sensationalism drives the American media? fething seriously?

Of course some sensationalism drives it... but, seriously, you're not paying attention. You want examples? Fine.

Where's the media on the Gosnell trial, that's just now starting to get a little bit attention? Remember, he was arrested in 2011. Oh, right... it deals with one of the major Democratic planks... abortion.

Sandy Hook? From day fething one, it was used to push for major Gun Control... why? Because it fits the narratives...

I can go all day long where SOME sensational news are pushed daily (see the Arias trial) and SOME sensational news are downplayed (see Gosnell trial and the Benghazi hearings).

Let's further expound the Media's coverage of the Gosnell trial shall we? When the major news network were called into question about that, it was responded by saying "it's a local news". Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).

Say wut? Isn't the Sequestration a form of austerity? (even though, it's technically not). But, we're getting gak ton of coverage of the problems in EU.

Yeah, sequestration is related to austerity, in that most of the people driving it through are doing so out of the mistaken belief that the deficit is primary issue in the US economy right now.

And yeah, there's plenty of coverage of Europe's economic problems (and here in Oz we're also getting plenty of coverage of your on-going economic malaise as well). But the point is that just describing the blow by blow events (GDP in someplace goes down, bailout package some other place rejected etc) is so superficial as to be almost entirely pointless.

The real story here, the one that really matters, is that faced with the recession, the leaders of Europe listened to a bunch of advisors who made a series of predictions and so put in place a number of policies... and every one of those predictions turned out wrong, and those policies have only made the recovery harder. And having seen that, the response has been to carry on with those policies.

Yup... no problem this statement.

So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.

Uh, actually there was a great deal of interference of the Bush admin in those CIA reports. You had Rove and Cheney actually going in to the offices of junior analysts and asking what elements of images could possibly be evidence of WMD facilities.

In fact, the reporting of the investigations in to all that in the wake of the failure to find WMDs is the classic example of a huge story that got nothing like the media attention it deserved. And it got nothing like the attention it deserved because ultimately it was just a lot of people going on record, saying their little bits and pieces over the course of months, even years, until finally the full story is known long after the whole thing is, in the mind of the public, done and dusted.

Hey... don't you see how the media took the time to investigate that, with gumption on that very issue? Now where was that same effort to Benghazi? I don't see it.

And that, simply in terms of the number of dead Americans, was miles more important than Benghazi, and yet it was such a media non-issue you seem entirely unaware of it to this day. Now there's two competing explanations for why it might have happened;

1) The whembly 'liberal media' theory... which runs in to problems when you consider this was a story that made the Bush admin look terrible.

I don't see the problem...

2) The sebster 'exciting stories get covered, and that means stuff that's immediately understandable and shocking and not stories slowly pieced together over a year of testimony, to reveal something we're still not completely sure about' theory... which accounts pretty well for why the Clinton blowjob impeachment shambles and the kid who was pretending to be in the weather balloon ran 24/7, and also accounts for Benghazi, and the CIA WMD story didn't.

You keep bringing up the Clinton thing... you do know why he was impeached. That actually happened... because he lied under oath. I don't think you're supporting anything everytime you keep bringing up Clinton's impeachment.

So you really think it's "okay" that politics was involved on how they handled Benghazi? That's the real issue... WHO made the decision to blame that youtube director? Why was this the major deflection for more than two weeks after the fact?

Do I think it is okay? No, political interference is never okay. Do I think it's meaningfully different than the kind of thing that goes on every single day? Unfortunately not really.

Glad you feel that way... that's why I feel like it's important to have sunlight on the Media's coverages to keep them honest... because, really... the Media does most of the watching on our politicians to keep them honest.

I mean, what about Pat Tillman? That guy left pro football to serve his country and fight in Afghanistan, where he was tragically killed by friendly fire. The military covered up the friendly fire incident, and instead ran with a story that claimed he died facing intense enemy fire. This bs story included telling other men in the unit to lie about the incident to Tillman's family at the funeral. And yeah, plenty of intimidation from higher ups to junior staff about what they were allowed to say to the media then as well.

And yet that story didn't run 24/7. And years later it's basically forgotten.

Say what? See... that's why *I* question how you get US news in the land of Oz...

Pat Tillman was ALL OVER THE fething NEWS and the media kept investigating (as it should). It's NOT a forgotten story... gak, we hear it all the time whenever the St. Louis Rams play the fething Arizona Cardinals (Tillman's old team).

And at this point you can keep shouting 'liberal media' or you can start to realise that the media just runs what we want to hear, and ultimately stories of murky, complex 'kind of sort of' cover ups just don't rate that well.

"If it Bleeds... It Leads" is NOT how it's done anymore. Which was my original point.

Whembly, I think you might be in a political bubble and it's distorting your perception of the coverage.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Whembly, I think you might be in a political bubble and it's distorting your perception of the coverage.

Naw... BrassScorpion is "in a bubble" as he only posts from Media Matters...

Me? I'm just ornery!

The reason why Benghazi hasn't caught on is because there is nothing there to catch on.

Were mistakes made? Sure. Was it a huge scandal bigger than Iran-Contra or Watergate? Not even close. I question if it is even any size of scandal or if it is just "Fog-of-War" type stuff, with a political circus tacked on after the fact.

 whembly wrote:
Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).

Should it? If I went through that, I'm not sure I'd want it held up for the entertainment and titillation of millions of people. I don't see what benefit it provides the victims. It doesn't even seem to provide a particular benefit to society. It's covered because the media outlets think people want to see it.

It seems like this is exactly the problem you should be railing against, in line with what sebster said: news media acting as an entertainment provider rather than a news one. Important issues are deemed to be too boring, so they're dropped in favour of more (supposedly) interesting ones.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).

Should it? If I went through that, I'm not sure I'd want it held up for the entertainment and titillation of millions of people. I don't see what benefit it provides the victims. It doesn't even seem to provide a particular benefit to society. It's covered because the media outlets think people want to see it.

It seems like this is exactly the problem you should be railing against, in line with what sebster said: news media acting as an entertainment provider rather than a news one. Important issues are deemed to be too boring, so they're dropped in favour of more (supposedly) interesting ones.

Everything is news... it's an industry. Report it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
The reason why Benghazi hasn't caught on is because there is nothing there to catch on.

Were mistakes made? Sure. Was it a huge scandal bigger than Iran-Contra or Watergate? Not even close. I question if it is even any size of scandal or if it is just "Fog-of-War" type stuff, with a political circus tacked on after the fact.

I wouldn't say it's Iran-Contra or Watergate...

It's News. Report it.

Another example of what I'm talking about:
CBS's Sharyl 'Benghazi Campaign' Attkisson Hadn't Reported About the Attack On the Air in Over 5 Months because the network executives at the liberal media outlet see her as "wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue." Which is what the media does!

 Mannahnin wrote:

So, the CIA mislead/lied/wrongly gave Bush/Rumsfeld that lead to the Iraq war. MEDIA response? Bush LIED, people DIED and et. el.

You're confusing a political slogan thrown around at rallies with a "media response". The media almost unilaterally bought into the Iraq war hype, and very few people in the media accused the administration of having been deliberately deceptive.

Well, they were probably too busy being deceptive themselves. Case in point, Whembly - The NY Times would probably be, in your opinion, the mascot for "liberal bias"; yet I can't think of any media figure who banged the "we better attack Iraq drum" longer or harder then Judy Miller. Quite the opposite of the "Bush Lied" slogan, to be frank.

TL;DR - the GOP can't make fetch Benghazi happen despite near milhousian efforts to make a meme happen; but the lack of media coverage has more to do with the fact there wasn't a single white woman in trouble then bias.

So, I go on lunch today...and the Arias trial is still being covered! Make the madness end! Haha.

 Ouze wrote:

Well, they were probably too busy being deceptive themselves. Case in point, Whembly - The NY Times would probably be, in your opinion, the mascot for "liberal bias"; yet I can't think of any media figure who banged the "we better attack Iraq drum" longer or harder then Judy Miller. Quite the opposite of the "Bush Lied" slogan, to be frank.

Actually, the Times is fine during any non-election years. They're a major outfit after all... it ain't like they're Mother Jones!

TL;DR - the GOP can't make fetch Benghazi happen despite near milhousian efforts to make a meme happen; but the lack of media coverage has more to do with the fact there wasn't a single white woman in trouble then bias.

Erm...what? o.O

I saw this info on my twittah feed:
One possibility of a cover-up, is an email from Hillary's spokeswoman Victoria Nuland specifies the why: The email says that her "superiors" are concerned that the CIA's talking points suggest that Hillary overlooked warning signs in Benghazi.

The smoking gun evidence of a cover-up is this: The demotion of a whistleblower, retaliation against Gregory Hicks, for telling the truth about the talking points.

Because this point is all but unspinnable -- the media's all-too-common tactic of late: Silence.

The Big Banghazi Theory

tl; dw During the Bush administration there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that lead to 13 deaths yet only garnered 3 hearings total and zero outrage from conservative media, as opposed to this one attack getting multiple hearings and constant coverage of 'maybe something happened, lets hope we find something out'.

This thread in a nutshell:

I'm mad because something I think is important isn't important to almost everybody else.

 Ahtman wrote:
The Big Banghazi Theory

tl; dw During the Bush administration there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that lead to 13 deaths yet only garnered 3 hearings total and zero outrage from conservative media, as opposed to this one attack getting multiple hearings and constant coverage of 'maybe something happened, lets hope we find something out'.

But during an election campaign?

I've said it before, there's a distinction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
This thread in a nutshell:

I'm mad because something I think is important isn't important to almost everybody else.

Who's "almost everyone else" boyo?

Why I'm not really paying atention to this. Both sides are guilty