How the Media covers a story: #Benghazi vs. Valerie Plame and Abu Ghraib

The Media has been doing a masterful job of avoiding any-and-all discussions about Benghazi since the day after it happened, and it’s a job they are largely continuing.

However, in the rare instances that Benghazi does get mentioned, the comparison to Watergate is often made. Many on the Right have long made this connection, and just as many on the Left repeatedly call such comparisons ridiculous.

Personally, I think that comparison is imperfect, for a couple of reasons. First, the Press will never allow it to stand, since for many of them Watergate has been elevated to a sacred religious experience, to be celebrated and revered. Thus, they react to its being compared to other scandals in much the same way an Islamist does if you draw a cartoon of Mohammed, …minus the rusty scimitar and poor grooming habits.

Additionally, Watergate was a different era, and much has changed since then. That was back before the internet, iPads, and smartphones. With greater access to news, we no longer have the same level of trust in the news media that we did back then.

No, no, …the better comparison is between Benghazi and Abu Ghraib, or between Benghazi and Valerie Plame.

Both of these instances occurred within the last decade, and are/were largely being covered by the very same “reporters”.

Were you to mention EITHER of those scandals to almost anyone today, you’ll still have a pretty solid chance that person will know exactly what you’re talking about. Why? Because the stories were above-the-fold headlines and led nightly broadcasts for months. They were trumpeted, flogged, screamed about and stuffed into our face relentlessly.

Mention “Benghazi” to those same individuals, and you’re likely to elicit blank stares.

Steven Crowder and Andrew Klavan do a masterful job of illustrating my point in the following clip:

“…I don’t know WHO HE IS…”??? Ouch…

Welcome to the Low-Information Voter: the College Years.

—–

Any objective reading of a story which combines horrific American deaths, a deliberate misinformation campaign, wrongful imprisonment, and an Executive Branch-level cover-up, would conclude that to be pretty darn ‘news worthy’. It is certainly as deserving as either of the two previous, multi-front-page scandals which so fascinated our Fourth Estate for so long.

The only essential difference between the Press’ coverage then and now was the President had an “R“ after his name back then, and this one has a “D“.

So, is this another Watergate? No.

This level of treachery is substantially worse.