The New York Times story concluding that the Benghazi attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility was not al-Qaida-related and was spurred by an anti-Muslim video will win the newspaper a Pulitzer prize, says Democratic operative James Carville.
Carville, appearing Thursday on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor,"
defended reporter David Kirkpatrick's journalism, even suggesting he testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. After all, Carville said, Kirkpatrick's six-month investigation was the most exhaustive probe anyone has made.
Host Bill O'Reilly was having none of that, noting on the one hand, "I don't think Congress should be snooping its nose into journalism," and on the other that it should be on his show where Kirkpatrick explains himself. So far, O'Reilly said, the reporter has appeared only on programs, such as CNN's,
where he isn't challenged.
"Everybody said the mainstream media needed to investigate this," Carville responded. "'60 Minutes' did, The New York Times did. I think The New York Times is looking a lot better than '60 Minutes' right now."
"60 Minutes" was forced to apologize
for an Oct. 27 story in which it interviewed a man who claimed he was on the ground during the attack but was found to be lying.
O'Reilly argued that Kirkpatrick did six months of investigation, but didn't manage to get a line in the story that the Pentagon believes al-Qaida was involved, even if indirectly.
"There is a culture at The New York Times that wants to help Barack Obama and, looking forward, Hillary Clinton," O'Reilly said.
Media pundit Bernard Goldberg said that The Times has lost credibility with the Benghazi story, but Howard Kurtz defended it as a serious attempt at journalism.
"That's not the way newsrooms work," Kurtz, a former writer for The Washington Post, said of O'Reilly's charge. Kurtz did admit that leaving the Pentagon's position out of the story was "a serious omission."
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.