Because they're going to keep telling you that you shouldn't care. And you'll take your cue from them.Its a curious world were living in when the media can declare Hillary Clinton triumphant after a day of questioning in which it was proved beyond all doubt that she knowingly lied about the terrorist attack in B******i, and in which she chuckled on live television about Ambassador Christopher Stevenss desperate attempts to get more security at the compound - attempts that failed because of her, resulting in his murder.
Yeah, thats hilarious.
So how exactly does the media get off trying to tell us that she won and that her Republican questioners lost? Essentially, theyve decided it doesnt matter that Hillary lied and that she denied Stevens the security that would have saved his life (and laughed about it on national television), because you dont care. And why dont you care? Because theyre going to tell you that you shouldnt.
PBS anchor Judy Woodruff, a creature of the Washington media mentality if ever there was one, gets right down to it here.
Lets lay out some things that we all sort of know but that need to be stated to frame this discussion: The media want a Democrat to succeed Obama, and since Hillarys pretty much the only option, theyre going to carry water for Hillary even though they dont especially like her. So when Hillary gets herself caught lying and neglecting basic duties like keeping consulate staff safe from attacks, the media dont want to go after her but they need a plausible pretext not to. Otherwise they look like the propagandists they in fact are.
Video:
http://youtu.be/yb5o9bUOJakSo their job is create a narrative for how theyll cover the story that will give Hillary a chance to wriggle out of her problem. The narrative will consist of two key issues: 1. Did we learn anything new? 2. Does the public care about this?
Now, we actually did learn something new. We learned in the first two days after the attack, Hillary sent e-mails to Chelsea and also to the president of Egypt making it clear that she knew B******i was a planned terrorist attack and not the result of a YouTube video, even as she went around in public for at least five days after that blaming the video, and in one instance even telling the father of one of those k**led that the administration would arrest and prosecute the man who made that film, who caused your sons death.
Thats new. Its the strongest proof weve ever had that Hillary lied about what happened at B******i.
So how can the media say we learned nothing new? They say that because everyone already sort of knew Hillary lied, so stronger proof than we had before of something we already knew is something they can portray as not new and thus not worthy of playing up in coverage. And this also gets us to the second part of their gambit: Theyve decided that you dont care. Thats where Woodruff is going in the video above. Fine, OK, she lied. What of it? What does anyone do with that?
The idea is that she cant be prosecuted, she cant be removed from the job she no longer holds, and she cant be prevented from running for president. So hey, theres no tangible action step anyone can take here, so why bother proving shes a liar? And because theres no tangible action step anyone can take, why should the public care that her lies were exposed?
So lets talk about that. If integrity among public servants matters, then the fact that the lie was proven is worthwhile all its own. If the medias job is actually to inform the public, then evidence presented in the e-mails Congressman Jordan read would be the lead story. It doesnt matter if theres no action step to take. The Secretary of State lied to the public about a terrorist attack, and thats news.
Ah, the media says, but its not news because the public isnt interested. Oh? And how do they know the public isnt interested? Some will say its because dishonesty is already priced into the Clinton brand, meaning everyone knows the Clintons are liars so theres no value in making anything of it when they lie yet again.
But the real reason is that the media know they can keep any story from being top-of-mind with the public simply by quashing coverage of it. You want to think otherwise, but I dont. Very committed activist types may keep discussion of a matter alive amongst themselves, but the mainstream public quickly forgets about anything if the mainstream media stop covering it. And that even applies to how they cover a story. If they play it straight and report what came out of the hearings, yeah, Hillarys in a world of hurt. But if they report it like a boxing match where they analyze what happened blow-by-blow - who looked confident, who got in the best line, who looked confused, who nodded with self-assurance - then they can make her look like the winner and call it a disaster for Republicans even though they did in fact prove shes a liar.
If the public really understands and is focused on the fact that the Secretary of State blatantly lied about a terrorist attack that k**led four Americans - who werent as secure as they should have been in large part because of her - I have a hard time believing they really wouldnt care. But its hard to focus on something when everyone who should be informing you about it refuses to do so.
By the way, none of this means Republicans were wrong to hold the hearing. Its their job to get at the t***h, and they did. If they uncover the t***h and no one else cares about it, then its the people who dont care who are the problem. And theyre going to elect the leaders they deserve, as they usually do.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/76296?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=1921dbf99c-5_20_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-1921dbf99c-297717381