CNN Airing of Exclusive Truth About Benghazi (Pardon the skepticism…)
As CNN gets set to air its exclusive The truth about Benghazi: An Erin Burnett Outfront Special Investigation Tuesday night (August 6), one questions the premise that CNN has been outfront about anything related to Benghazi. In fact CNN has done all it could to minimize, shroud or stall any Benghazi coverage.
According to the Media Research Center, this is the same network who devoted “4 hours, 9 minutes of coverage to the two crime stories, but a measly eight minutes to Benghazi — over 30 times more coverage and three of CNN’s prime-time shows didn’t even mention Benghazi. The 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET hours of Anderson Cooper 360 featured over one hour and twenty minutes of material on Arias and the Cleveland abduction, but not a second on the hearing. The 9 p.m. ET hour of Piers Morgan Live aired over 40 minutes on the two stories, but completely ignored the Benghazi hearing.”
This is the same network who gave us the infamous Candy Crowley/Benghazi exchange during the second presidential debate:
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It – it – it – he did in fact, sir. So let me – let me call it an act of terror…
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He – he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take – it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there
being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
CNN’s coverage, or lack thereof, of Benghazi is peppered with colluded efforts to reconcile Obama’s narrative with actual events. In a damage control effort to co-opt the Benghazi storyline, President Obama held an off-the-record Benghazi briefing with select media (CNN among the select few) once the video incitement story was debunked by less sycophantic media sources.
It is no surprise that CNN got an exclusive about Benghazi. One wonders where their “exclusive information” came from – perhaps phone records from the DOJ criminal investigation of Fox News reporter, James Rosen or the compromised computer files of CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson?
One wonders why CNN was gifted the story and given exclusive access to Ahmed Abu Khattala, one of the alleged conspirators of the Benghazi attack. Was it because of their historically collusive relationship with the administration or was it because the other investigative journalists covering Benghazi story from its inception (or on-the-ground witnesses themselves for that matter) have either been silenced by accusation of co-conspiracy against the administration, demoted to menial duties at the State Department (ie., Gregory Hicks) or had to change their names out of fear of retaliation against their families?
So pardon me as I watch this exclusive story from Reliable Sources at CNN about the truth behind Benghazi with a lens of reasonable doubt. I’d much rather hear the story coming from those who are being professionally and personally persecuted by (the administration’s) power.