One of the favorite whipping boys for pseudo-intellectuals on the left is Fox News. When these folks get to the point where they are hopelessly losing a political argument, they almost inevitably pull out the “did you get that from Faux News?” card, as if a fact reported on Fox is less true than one reported in the New York Times.
I bring this up because, eight months later, the CBS, NBC and Washington Posts of the world have finally discovered that the assault on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya was not caused by a low-budget video, and that the Obama administration has been consistently, overtly, and gratuitously lying about the whole affair ever since. Fox News has been reporting on this, almost alone, for the entire period.
The proximate cause of this sudden spate of interest was not some bit of drama-worthy sleuthing by a pair of hungry young MSNBC reporters, but an article written by the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, in which he point by point lays out the metamorphosis which the infamous Susan Rice talking points went through, from honest intelligence to unrecognizable political pablum.
Even after Hayes’ article, it didn’t become acceptable for MSM journalists to ask about the issue until Jonathan Karl of ABC News, apparently picked up a copy of the Weekly Standard, and put together his own version. At that point, the deception officially became news, and the Washington press corps decided it was okay to ask White House spokesman Jay Carney to clear up all those inconsistencies he had been piling up for eight months.
This, of course, is not an isolated incident. The MSM did not think the horrific Kermit Gosnell abortion/murder trial was newsworthy until shamed into reporting on it by the estimable liberal commentator Kirsten Powers’ USA Today piece.
And, of course, there was the John Edwards love-child story, in which the former Democratic vice-presidential candidate impregnated and paid off a videographer, then had an aide claim paternity of the child. As far as the MSM was concerned, none of this was news because Edwards was no longer a VP candidate. I’m sure they would treat Sarah Palin just the same, under the same set of circumstances. In any event, it took the National Enquirer to break that story.
So my question is, what do we need these guys for? They do a great job of adversarial journalism when a Republican is in the White House, but as soon as a Democrat is in office, especially a young, black, charismatic, Ivy-League educated one, they become almost zombie-like in their incuriosity.
Perhaps they should all take nice long sabbaticals, and come back to work only after President Ted Cruz is inaugurated.