Sharyl Attkisson: CBS told me it wasn't relevant to our Benghazi coverage that the president of the news division is Ben Rhodes's brother

Via Larry O’Connor, skip to 6:00 for the key bit. She wanted the network to disclose in its Benghazi stories that, oh by the way, the guy who’s in charge of news programming here is a blood relation to the guy who was overseeing the White House’s end of the controversial CIA talking points that Susan Rice got after the attack. The response: No, that’s so irrelevant to our coverage that we shouldn’t devote even three seconds of airtime to mentioning it every now and then. Better to leave CBS viewers totally in the dark. You know who I bet wasn’t in the dark, though? CBS employees. Attkisson says the newsroom didn’t hear anything from David Rhodes about not covering Benghazi, but if you were a reporter and you knew that the boss’s brother was mixed up in a major unflattering national security story, would you need to be warned explicitly for that relationship to affect your coverage? If there’s no way to stop news bureaus from being led by people who have a family investment in the success of the administration, the least you can do is mention the connection and let viewers decide for themselves.

Actually, I suppose that’s not the very least you can do. The very least you can do is to avoid the subject of Ben Rhodes and Bengazi altogether, which is what the CBS Evening News did last night. ABC and NBC both mentioned the newly uncovered Rhodes e-mail. CBS didn’t. How come?