If the legacy media covered President Obama instead of covering for him, California would be in play in tomorrow’s contest. Our media simply fail to report so many stories which might tarnish the image of the Democratic incumbent. Just today, one day before the election, numerous conservative bloggers have noted, in the words of one such blogress, “CBS has just released new footage of Obama declining [on September 12] to call the [Benghazi] attack terrorism when pressed, saying it’s ‘it’s too early to tell’“.
They should have released that clip a lot earlier; it would have given credence to the claim Mitt Romney made in the second debate, a claim that Candy Crowley, the moderator, challenged.
It’s not just Benghazi. It’s Obama’s telling his supporters that “voting is the best revenge.” And the media not making that front page news. It’s the failure to cover Hurricane Sandy like they covered Hurricane Katrina. It’s their failure to cover the Fast & Furious gunrunning scandal.
They may yet help push Obama across the finish line tomorrow, but at the cost of their own credibility. Distrust in media has reached an all-time high. Earlier today in the Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel called political reporters the real “the loser in this election cycle“:
Reporters who push Obama for actual answers, meanwhile, find themselves scorned by their peers — as we discovered the hard way when our White House reporter dared ask Obama an unapproved question during a presidential statement in the Rose Garden. Months later, longtime Newsweek correspondent Jonathan Alter confronted us on the street and became apoplectic, literally yelling and shaking and drawing a crowd, over the exchange. His complaint: our reporter was “rude” to Obama.
Yep. Good reporters occasionally are impolite, especially to people in power who refuse to answer legitimate questions about their own policies. We don’t hire for table manners. We hire for persistence and toughness and the ability to spot a story among the fluff. We’re traditional that way. It’s the legacy media that have changed.
They go on to detail the complicity; they cite Benghazi as a case in point. It would only be natural for journalists to question the White House when the president’s team was peddling a narrative at odds with the facts — calling the incident “merely a protest over a video” when, it is now clear, the White House had abundant information — almost from the moment the attack began — that it was a terrorist attack. Not to mention the repeated requests for security that went unanswered.
It is no wonder that their reputation is in tatters. And should they continue along the path they’re on, it will worsen. And our republic will suffer.
Perhaps, some people can see through it. But, it’s clear that others trust the legacy media for their information about the world. Otherwise, this race wouldn’t even be close.