In a chat that aired on Howard Kurtz’s Fox News media program yesterday, Attkisson addressed the apparent suppression/possible misplacement of that clip: “The ‘Evening News’ people who had access to that transcript, according to the e-mails I saw, when it was sent from ’60 Minutes’ to ‘Evening News’ the very day that it was taken, they in my view skipped over it, passed it up, kept it secret throughout the whole time when it would have been relevant to the news and I think that was because they were trying to defend the president — they thought that would be harmful to him,” said Attkisson to Kurtz.The link goes to Erik Wemple's column in The Washington Post that has the headline "Sharyl Attkisson’s compelling gripe against CBS News over Benghazi coverage." I don't think I've ever seen the phrase "compelling gripe" before. If something is compelling, it's not a gripe! It's like they want to minimize it and call it a big deal at the same time. Obviously, it's a huge deal!
Even more damning: According to Attkisson, CBS Newsers directed her to use a “different clip from the same interview to give the misimpression that the president had done the opposite” — that is, that the president had indeed acknowledged terrorism early on.
११ नोव्हेंबर, २०१४
Sharyl Attkisson says CBS News suppressed a clip of Obama refusing to call Benghazi a terrorist attack.
This clip — recorded in a Steve Kroft "60 Minutes" interview — was evidence of the precise point that Obama denied in the second debate with Mitt Romney, the moment when the debate moderator Candy Crowley stepped in to side with Obama. In the "60 Minutes" clip — which was left out of the edited interview that aired — Obama said: "Well, it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved. But, obviously, it was an attack on Americans."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
One side knew it was lies and wanted the truth to come out; the other side knew it was lies, too, but wanted to keep the truth hidden. Sad how easy it is to figure out which side the journalists were on.
Prepare for the homophobic "butt hurt" comments from the lefties.
Most of the mainstream media is on a side on everything. The MSM is a part of the Left.
If you've been to Libya, you'd know how foolish it is to project U.S. (and first world) life-style onto most anyone below the wealth of, say, their imported foreign oil-workers. They don't have smart phones. They don't have internet access. The limited access they might have through an internet café, where high-latency, satellite-linked thru German ISPs network connections has about enough performance to do email and look at the occasional (dirty) picture. A movie? No way. TV, maybe. But just a little local investigation would have shown these types of films are never shown.
The local militia can organize an attack. The mullah can organize a protest (as long as he feeds the protesters). Those living on a few dollars a day go where they are told.
We are so gullible, and far too trusting of government. And we have investigative reporters that are no longer worthy of the name. Sad.
Catching the media in bed with the democrat party is - *no big deal*. Happens all the time. Get over it.
The democrat party needs a constant media crutch.
It's too bad Romney bumbled this. The idea that Obama did or did not call it a "terrorist attack" or "act of terror" was inconsequential to the merits of the administration's conduct leading up to and in the aftermath (to this day even). Romney focusing on the phrase was missing the forest for the trees. Unfortunately, he was looking for a soundbite to be included in a future political ad (you know, to take it out of context) and missed a golden opportunity to portray Obama as bumbling and weak on the merits. The joys of modern politics and the all-important goal of turnout.
Anyway, after Crowley pulled the presidents chestnuts out of the fire Romney could have been, should have been prepared to pounce. Instead he let Obama off the hook. He conceded the point before the play ended.
It takes effort to make Mitt Romney look wrong. You pick one really important thing, say no to all the rest, and put your complete focus on this one project.
Jake - that's right. I thought the very same thing at the time. An American ambassador and 3 others are dead, and Hillary and Obama were asleep at the switch.
Plus the ridiculous "It was the video" lie. Romney should have pounded on that.
This is not new news. It was reported on by Brett Baier before the 2012 elections, widely commented on in the right blogosphere at that time, and determinedly and successfully ignored by everyone else in the media/Obama reelection machine until now.
http://nation.foxnews.com/60-minutes/2012/11/05/cbs-held-damaging-obama-benghazi-tape
Trivial...just four eggs in Obama and Hillary's omelette, right lefties?
DNCBS is just an operative branch of the Democrat Party.
Related: Ars Technica (arguably the most influential "serious" tech site among Net geeks) just ran a bizarre piece on Sharyl Attkisson's allegations about being hacked by the government. I'll admit that I'm not ready to say her story is completely correct, as she doesn't seem to be particularly technically savvy, but the Ars piece is written in a tone that has Attkisson wearing a tinfoil hat and being motivated only by the need to sell a book. The accompanying art doesn't seem particularly balanced, either. It's so tiresome to say this, but I cannot imagine Ars doing a similar piece if a GOP administration were the subject of Attkisson's accusations.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/did-the-government-hack-a-cbs-journalist-maybe/
Note: The story was updated with some comments/clarifications directly from Attkisson, but the "loony bird" tone is still there. The lefties won't rest until Attkisson is as easily dismissed as Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter.
This would be "a huge deal!" in a world where that was the Obama administration's only scandal. It would be one visible spot of mud on a clean pig. However, we live in a world where there are so many scandals that the Obama administration pig is completely covered with mud after wallowing in scandal after scandal. And the pig will tell you that it is clean and that there is not a smidgen of mud on it. And 40% of the electorate will believe the mud-covered pig.
What difference at this point does it make?
For whatever reason, Romney lacked the cojones to take on both BHO and Crowley the moderator simultaneously and live on network TV, with everybody looking right at him. He flinched. Maybe he second-guessed the wisdom of it. Maybe he doubted his own mastery of the topic. Maybe he saw it as a no-win situation. He should've said something more, but he didn't, and I'm guessing he now wishes he had.
Obama was "cool and effortless" in hoodwinking the audience in that second debate, because he is a con man.
Romney was speechless at the "cool and effortless"-ness of Obama.
The "cool and effortless" Obama said 'you can keep your doctor, if you like them; your premium will not go up, bla, blah..', but his architect's video from 2013 has surfaced where he calls the voters stupid and says they needed to be hoodwinked to pass Obamacare. The 'cool and effortless' Obama told Romney (in the same debate?) that it was OK to call it Obamacare.
How many videos of the "cool and effortless' Obama are there that are hidden from people?
the Ars piece is written in a tone that has Attkisson wearing a tinfoil hat and being motivated only by the need to sell a book.
Well....?
Attkisson is dragging our wonderful President through the mud again just like Mitt Romney was doing in 2012.
How could any decent Propagandist be expected to allow that to happen and not protect The Won from it.
So Attkisson is only a lightweight gripe.
"Anyway, after Crowley pulled the presidents chestnuts out of the fire Romney could have been, should have been prepared to pounce. Instead he let Obama off the hook. He conceded the point before the play ended."
I disagree. Romney was at same disadvantage that any honest man has in a den of thieves. I watched the debate and he was surprised that Crowley would intervene.
I saw a similar incident when Rudy Giuliani was on a TV show where the host (I've forgotten her name; Spanish surname I think) on CNN did a similar intervention and Rudy came right back with a response, "How many people am I debating today ? You too ?"
Giuliani is a trial lawyer and a lot faster in such situations. Romney just didn't have the skills to deal with a liar that quickly.
Too bad that is becoming important for presidents.
"Romney just didn't have the skills to deal with a liar that quickly".
Obama isn't quick on his feet either.
Of course he doesn't need to be as the press props him up.
After watching the press spin Obama as competent and moral vs. Romney as part doofus, part sinister corporate shill, and the public falling for it, it was obvious to me that we had passed the event horizon into a black hole of civilizational collapse from which escape is impossible.
I'm not sure it's possible to fully catalog the media's betrayal of the American people. And of course the "journalists" responsible will never be brought to justice. Most will, however, end up in the unemployment line. We have to be satisfied with that.
As for Romney, his failure to press the point after getting sandbagged by Crowley is a prime example of his unfitness for the role of major party nominee. He may not have expected it to come from the moderator, but he should have expected it.
"As for Romney, his failure to press the point after getting sandbagged by Crowley is a prime example of his unfitness for the role of major party nominee. He may not have expected it to come from the moderator, but he should have expected it."
Yet had he been elected I think he would have been a very good president. I think his administrative skills and predilection for problem solving were exactly what we needed.
There is more to Libya than the tragedy at Benghazi. The rest also is on Obama and Bill Clinton's wife:
Libya
March 18, 2011
ABC News
Obama: U.S. Involvement in Libya Action Would Last 'Days, Not Weeks'
(It lasted 7 Months)
"We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the protection of civilians in Libya," Obama said.
March 22, 2011
The Hill
White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission
March 28, 2011
Obama's Speech at the National Defense University
"There is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it ..."
October 24, 2011
CBS News
"Qaddafi apparently so-dom-ized, then killed, after capture."
The New Yorker
August 7, 2013
"CAN LIBYA BE SAVED?"
"Libya should have once again achieved peace and stability. Instead, the country, of more than six million people, seems to have been fatally destabilized by the war to remove its dictator, and it is increasingly out of control."
“In a recent interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, Obama admitted he never thought much about what would follow the U.S. air campaign in a post-Gaddafi Libya.”
@Paul and the other two ..
Romney was not as 'cool and effortless' as Obama.
Unfortunately for us, Obama's 'cool and effortless'-ness has not translated into good governance.
Like the Obamacare architect said, 'it is the stupid voter, stupid'
Evidence CBS News wasn't a news organization at all, but an arm of the Democrat Party.
They should lose their media credentials.
"As for Romney, his failure to press the point after getting sandbagged by Crowley is a prime example of his unfitness for the role of major party nominee. He may not have expected it to come from the moderator, but he should have expected it."
No, it is a weakness of a candidate who has not been a trial lawyer. I prefer men who know how to run very large organizations to men who are good at trial repartee.
The reporters's name was Soledad O'Brien and Giuliani was excellent but I'm not sure he would be as good a president as Romney. I supported Rudy in 2008. I thought McCain was too old that year.
Without any evidence whatsoever, I believe the administration communicated to Romney that there was a double secret covert operation happening in Benghazi and that further investigation of it would harm American interests. I believe Romney's patriotism is the reason he backed off. No other explanation seems credible to me.
We will likely never know
The GOP nust include in its debate prep for candidates a reminder that most of the Lamestream Media from which the "moderators are drawn are but Dem propagandists &, QED, candidates must be prepared for shabby tricks from them. Thus, they must develop a way to diffuse such departures from what the candidate would consider "fair & balanced" moderation.
No one needs a candidate with a PhD in espirit de l'escalier
About 35 years ago, at one of those "congress person meets with the folks", in a RC Parish basement, I asked my then congress woman, The Hon Ferraro, a question about some modest reforms in Social Security. She made an impassioned demagogic rant about how seniors would never lose their SS as long as she was in congress. I wound up sounding like Captain Queeg, "proving with geometric logic...."
The audience, mostly seniors booed me loudly!
But I was not running for her seat.
As noted in the example from Rudy G, GOP politicians have to figure a way to do better than Romney & moi.
In answer to KLD's note from Hil about "What difference at this point does it make?" GOP candidates should heed Wordsworth: Oh, the difference to me
MK
it is a weakness of a candidate who has not been a trial lawyer. I prefer men who know how to run very large organizations to men who are good at trial repartee.
But of course.
Unfortunately, with the format we have, for the low/dis/mis-info voter, or for someone looking for an excuse not to vote for a candidate, glibness trumps & a moment of seeming befuddlement or even actual unsureness overcomes millions of dollars of thoughtful campaign rhetoric.
It is bad enough when CBS hides the news from its viewers as she alleges. It is altogether a different thing to then engage in a propaganda campaign to discredit her, as she predicted in her book.
CBS remains silent on this subject...hmmm.
@Biff,
Unless arstechnica has access to the forensics from the PC, I am going with a hit job.
I gave up on television news in the 90's, specifically the Steve Kroft interview with the Clintons. Everyone else thought they had done a masterful job of "answering questions" about Clinton's integrity---I thought that all of them including Kroft came across as shitheels.
I'm reading Sharyl Attkinson's book right now, and her issues go way beyond the media covering for Obama and the Democrats. Her tale is one of decline. The leftist baby boomer honchos at the "mainstream media" are managing the decline.
This goes to the very heart of the culture of the baby boom. While the Beatles, Dylan, and so on enthralled the baby boomers in their day, the character of baby boomers then and now in my opinion can be summed up in a single record from 1965 by Dobie Gray titled "The In Crowd" (i.e. "I'm in with the in crowd...I go where the in crowd goes...I know what the in crowd knows." ) Sad.
Thank you, Mrs. Whatsit, for the informative link. It's clear from the timing that CBS withheld that interview until it ceased to be news and became "olds." By sitting on the story until November 4th CBS accomplished two goals. Firstly, they kept out of sight and hearing a stinging refutation of Obama's own claim to competence -- General Motors is alive, and Usama bin Ladin is dead -- coming straight from the horse's mouth, thus protecting the Democrat and denying to the Republican the most creditable and effective soundbite to emerge that campaign season. Secondly, they it least partially insulated themselves from charges of blatant partisanship by airing Kroft's interview before -- barely before -- election day.
CBS News knows its products very well. They know with high precision just how long it takes a story aired on 60 Minutes to disseminate through their actual viewership (much reduced from their pre-Web heyday) to the attention of the general public. I don't pretend to know what this delay is, but if asked to speculate I would venture a solid week -- Monday for the NYT and the WaPo to run a straight reportage piece, Tuesday or Wednesday for an in-depth backgrounder with analysis, then Wednesday or Thursday for an crudely produced opposition ad based on the story to be aired. The original story wouldn't truly acquire legs until the follow Sunday morning when the usual suspects have their chance to opine on the AM talkers. If I'm at least nearly right one can see that the only less damaging air dates for the Kroft-Obama interview would have been after November 6th. Thus the actual air date is the optimal compromise between perfect protection of the Democrat candidate and perfect CYA for CBS News.
The WaPo link says "CBS declined to comment." Ok, get a camera and tail Steve Kroft, 60-minutes style. "Hey, Steve, why didn't you speak up about the first question you asked the President in that Sept 12 interview? Hey, Steve, where ya' going?"
RE: Romney and Candy Crowley. I knew when they allowed George Stephi to moderate the early debate, that the negotiator for the Republicans was a jackass.
"Catching the media in bed with the democrat party ..."
It's not what you think!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा