How The Post came up short on Libya
The Post’s coverage of the Libya attack was good early and good late, but there was an unfortunate gap in the middle — partly but not completely explained by personnel issues — that made it look like The Post was shying away from a full-court press to find out what the Obama administration knew and whether it was giving a true portrayal of the attack. …
But in subsequent days it seemed that The Post almost went silent on the background to the Libya attack and concentrated instead on the increasing and widespread protests around the Muslim world triggered by a made-in-America video clip ridiculing the prophet Muhammad. …
All during this period, CNN, Fox News and other media outlets in Washington were hammering away at whether the Obama administration was being honest about what it knew and whether the murders were a planned terrorist attack. The Post published some of this in its Sept. 13 story but did not develop it further. …
The Post needs to keep digging. That gap in the middle enraged many readers and reinforced their false suspicions that The Post is trying to cover for Obama, and it can’t let that happen.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, an accidental mistake is called a TYPO, an intentional omission of facts to make democrats look better is called a WAPO.
Flange on October 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM
I actually don’t think most mainstream journalists are actively trying to cover for him. (Many are, of course; Journolist proved that.) I just think they get depressed and lose enthusiasm when pursuing his many scandals, as clearly happened in this case. The only mainstream journalist out there truly energized by “afflicting the comfortable” regardless of party is Jake Tapper.
Fabozz on October 6, 2012 at 11:32 AM
The Obama administration is going to take a lot of these rags down with it. Good.
Yoop on October 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Translation: We tried to ignore this story, but it wouldn’t go away. We really thought that blame-it-on-the-video thing would work, and should have realized how lame it was from the start. Additionally, it was impossible to find a way to blame it on Bush, and Romney turned out to be a one-day scapegoat. As a result, our reporters were left discouraged and confused at a time when they should have thrown in the towel and done a little real reporting that minimized the importance of the story.
RadClown on October 6, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Even within this pitiful explanation of failure, they stick with the Obama lie that there was a protest at the consulate before the attack. Several news reports have shown that to be false. Pathetic.
MississippiMom on October 6, 2012 at 11:57 AM