Tags: Benghazi Scandal | Hillary Clinton | Media Bias

Media Turns Two Blind Eyes to Benghazi

Image: Media Turns Two Blind Eyes to Benghazi
 

By
Monday, 26 Oct 2015 01:06 PM Current | Bio | Archive

Following the completion of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s long-awaited testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, mainstream media outlets dutifully went out and trumpeted Clinton’s carefully crafted appearance.

Evidently, there was at the same time a deliberate effort to dismiss one of the most highly significant news stories and to continue with the agenda of getting the current consensus Democrat elected.

Those in society who remember when the importance of the First Amendment now find themselves in the unexpected position of having contempt for a media they once esteemed.

The negative perspective has been precipitated in part by the intentional non-reporting of certain news stories and the purposeful shaping of select others.

In a shirking of their professional responsibilities, many members of the broadcast and print professions chose to disregard pertinent facts that came to light during the hearing, including that approximately 600 requests for more security by State Department personnel in Benghazi were left unfulfilled and the number of security agents present in Benghazi at the beginning of 2012 was the same number present on the day of the attacks — even though more than nine months had elapsed.

Media outlets that opted to ignore fresh evidence, which surfaced in the hearing, hit a new low by turning a blind eye to the fact that Clinton had explicit information as to the cause of the lethal Benghazi attack; that she knew exactly who engineered the assault; and that with a concocted story she proceeded to intentionally and repeatedly mislead the American people.

Documents submitted at the hearing were evidentiary smoking guns, pure and simple.

The revelations should have generated major headlines, but instead the public’s psyche was massaged with, among others, the following media messages:
  • The Washington Post pronounced, “Amid shouting at Benghazi hearing, Republicans land no clear punches."
  • The Hill headline opined, “Clinton largely unscathed by GOP Benghazi hearing.”
  • The Los Angeles Times caption concluded, “Clinton maintains relentless calm as Benghazi hearing hits 8-hour mark.”
  • USA Today suggested, “Benghazi hearing ‘chaos’ could help Clinton.”
If truth-telling were the prime objective, two documents that emerged would have been centerpieces of news reports on Clinton’s appearance in front of the select committee.

Both documents show that Clinton explicitly stated in private that the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11, 2012, which took the lives of four Americans, was not influenced or motivated by an anti-Islam YouTube video but rather was a terrorist act by a known terrorist organization.

Contrary to what was publicly known prior to the hearings, Clinton had an email exchange with daughter Chelsea on the day of the attack, the contents of which were quite telling. In the reply email to Chelsea, Clinton wrote, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.”

Another document, which was a State Department call summary memo that had been obtained by the select committee, reveals that on the afternoon of Sept. 12, Secretary Clinton received notes to prepare for a 4:30 p.m. meeting on the attacks in Benghazi.

The notes stated that “sources indicate a group named Ansar al-Sharia, affiliated with Islamic extremists, organized the attack.”

The second document also indicated the embassy in Tripoli had reported that the attack was “sophisticated, well-organized, involved over 50 armed gunmen, and appears to have been planned in advance.”

It further revealed the content of a telephone call that had taken place between Clinton and the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil on Sept. 12, 2012, the day after the attack.

Notes from the telephone call quoted Clinton as saying, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” It additionally stated, “Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Disturbingly, two days later on Sept. 14, the former secretary of state stood before the flag-draped coffins of those Americans killed in the attack.

While speaking to the grieving family members of the slain as well as a television audience, Clinton blamed the attack on “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

Instead of carrying out their professional and civic duties to report on the details of these profoundly important documents, a sizable number of derelict news media outlets is instead circling the wagons around Clinton and focusing on the superficial, the frivolous, and the fictional.

The documents go to the heart of information without which it is impossible for our society to maintain integrity. The question remains of whether or not genuine journalism will ever again be the norm.

James Hirsen, J.D., M.A., in media psychology, is a New York Times best-selling author, media analyst, and law professor. Visit Newsmax TV Hollywood. Read more reports from James Hirsen — Click Here Now.




 
 

© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Hirsen
Media outlets opted to ignore fresh evidence, which surfaced in the hearing. Clinton had explicit information as to the cause of Benghazi. The revelations should have generated major headlines. If truth-telling were the prime objective, two documents would have been centerpieces of news reports.
Benghazi Scandal, Hillary Clinton, Media Bias
805
2015-06-26
Monday, 26 Oct 2015 01:06 PM
Newsmax Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved