Can the Media Protect Hillary Clinton from Latest State Department Scandal?

Here is an article from the Editor of Accuracy in Media, Roger Aronoff, from the Canadian Free Press that suggests how the media, particularly CBS News and NBC News, have kept Hillary Clinton away from controversy by not covering the most recent alleged State Department scandals:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55849 

Hillary Clinton’s approval rating has fallen 12 points in the wake of the Benghazi scandal, especially since some Americans still hold her responsible for the inadequate security in Libya during the September 11, 2012 attack. Now, additional scandals, which may have been covered up by the State Department under Hillary’s watch could further threaten her approval rating. These scandals, if given enough traction by the media, could possibly jeopardize Hillary’s chances to run for president. It is therefore in the media’s best interest to keep their beloved political candidate away from controversy, and distance the department’s cover-up from her leadership.

Two news accounts do so. CBS News’ groundbreaking story mentions Hillary only once. NBC News’ story mentions Hillary only once, as well.

“CBS News’ John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off,” reports CBS news. “The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples” (emphasis added).

So, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, may have covered up eight different investigations—if not more. These investigations include allegations of prostitution, pedophilia by an ambassador, sexual assault, and drug purchases.

CBS’s reporting is based on a State Department memo issued in October of last year. A draft report for the Inspector General’s office was issued on December 4, 2012. The final report, issued in March 2013, omitted references to the cover-ups, according to the New York Post. The Post aimed its article, “Hillary’s sorry state of affairs,” straight at Secretary Clinton’s leadership.

“The draft report, marked ‘Sensitive But Unclassified,’ cites several examples of undue influence ‘from the top floor of the department, raising serious concerns about the quality and integrity’ of investigations,” reports the Post. “That statement was removed from the final report issued March 15.”

Bloomberg reports that Hillary’s approval rating was at an all-time high in December, at 70 percent. Would it have remained as high had the Inspector General’s report come out with the eight cited cases? It is unlikely.

“Since leaving the state department, Clinton has mostly kept a low profile, other than delivering a few public speeches and releasing a video in March in which for the first time she announced support for same-sex marriage,” reported John McCormick for Bloomberg News. “Even so, she’s done just enough in the political arena to keep potential donors and supporters intrigued by the historic potential of backing a candidate who could become the first woman president.”

According to the recent Bloomberg poll, “47 percent said they disapprove of how Clinton handled the situation in Benghazi, while roughly a third—34 percent—said they approve.” Bloomberg credits Benghazi as the reason Clinton’s favorability dropped 12 percentage points since last December. It could have been more, as the recent leak by former State Department investigator Aurelia Fedenisn demonstrates.

The scandal reaches up to Hillary’s right-hand man Patrick Kennedy, at the very least, and involves her own guards.

NBC News opted not to identify the ambassador who has been accused of soliciting minors and prostitutes. “Top State Department officials directed investigators to ‘cease the investigation’ into the ambassador’s conduct, according to the memo,” reports NBC News. However, the New York Post identifies the ambassador as Howard Gutman, ambassador to Belgium.

Gutman is a long-time Barack Obama supporter who raised $500,000 for Obama and helped fund the inauguration, according to The Weekly Standard.

While the NBC story didn’t identify the ambassador, it did quote his denial of any wrongdoing: “‘I am angered and saddened by the baseless allegations that have appeared in the press,’ the ambassador said, adding that to see his time in the country where he served ‘smeared is devastating.’”

It is no surprise, then, that Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy interceded on the ambassador’s behalf. “Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy ordered the investigation ceased, and the ambassador remains in place, according to the memo,” reported the Post.

In addition, “At least seven agents in Clinton’s security detail hired prostitutes while traveling with her in various countries, including Russia and Colombia.

“Investigators called the use of prostitutes by Clinton’s security agents ‘endemic.’
“The liaisons with prostitutes allegedly occurred in the same hotel where Clinton slept, according to sources familiar with the incident.”

Also, the Special Investigations Division was unable to interview Brett McGurk, President Obama’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to Iraq, because long-time Clinton loyalist Cheryl Mills “interceded,” according to the memo. Mills has been working for the Clintons “on and off” since 1992 and was the general counsel and chief of staff to Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi attack, reported The Washington Free Beacon, which called Mills “The Whistleblower Blocker.”

It is not surprising that these allegations did not make it into the Inspector General’s March 15 report. After all, the State Department influenced the CIA into doing 12 different revisions of its talking points before it was satisfied with the outcome, according to ABC News. During these revisions the talking points were scrubbed of terror references, a vital clue as to the origin of the attacks.

Since these allegations of terror might have hurt the State Department’s reputation, they were deliberately hidden from the public view. Instead, the attack was blamed on an anti-Islam video. Similarly, the current scandal’s true aspects were hidden from public view to save the department’s reputation.

Internal notes demonstrate that this may have been the case. “At a December 2012 meeting to prepare the report, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell said he was ‘stunned’ by the findings, and requested that the cases should be omitted,” reports the NY Post, using notes from the meeting supplied by Fedenisn.

“Fedenisn, the whistleblower, did not take the notes but was charged with keeping them, according to her lawyer.”

“Boswell said putting the subject in the report would ‘generally damage [Department of State],’ would ‘probably damage the Department,’ and would be used by ‘every defense lawyer around,’” according to notes from the meeting.

In other words, as was true for Benghazi, politics trumps the truth at the State Department. What else can we really expect from Hillary’s Department of State?

The media, such as NBC and CBS, should be more responsible and demand accountability from Hillary for her leadership of the State Department. Instead, they act like she wasn’t in charge and shouldn’t be held accountable.

After all, we have Hillary’s guards soliciting prostitutes, her right-hand man overlooking alleged pedophilia, and a long-time Clinton loyalist intervening in Iraq. Shouldn’t this put the nail in the coffin for a Clinton presidency, or will the media cover for her as it has the Obama Administration?

Read More

Rooting For Ed: Why NSA Whistleblower Snowden Has Left, Right Media Swooning

Here is an article from Joe Concha of Mediaite discussing how both conservative and liberal media have taken a liking to Edward Snowden.  Snowden, a former CIA employee, released classified material on top secret NSA programs to the Washington Post and The Guardian this month.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rooting-for-ed-why-nsa-whistleblower-snowden-has-left-right-media-swooning/

Everyone loves an underdog.
Rocky. Daniel LaRusso. John McClane. Rudy. Andy Dufresne. Jon Favreau in Swingers.
And now, Edward Snowden…
For the sake of this column, the aforementioned “everyone” is relegated to the media. Left media, right media…for once, it actually doesn’t matter. It’s David (OK, Edward) with Goliath (our federal government…which is quickly becoming–in the eyes of some–the scariest entity since the Zod Administration of Superman II).
For Snowden to out himself as a whistleblower of the government collecting info on billions of phone calls and activities on the Internet, the former CIA employee has cast himself as a hero in the eyes of the media, and ultimately, the public. And guess what? That attempt is mostly succeeding.
In a new CBS MarketWatch online poll, Snowden is being called a “patriot” by almost 70 percent of all respondents. Rather than being caught—which likely would have happened—the 29-year-old’s decision to come forward is being called gutsy, ethical, fearless. In the end, many are saying he’s just a regular guy with his heart in the right place.
Glenn Beck has declared Snowden a hero.
Michael Moore has done the same.
So with even these guys agreeing and Bizarro World officially open for business, the questions are:
Is this a case of the media amplifying the extremes in each party?
Is this just another type of media bias?
Of course, not everyone is hoisting Snowden on their shoulders. Jeffrey Toobin (a legal analyst for CNN and the New Yorker) calls him “a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison,” while Fox News contributor Ralph Peters—a former Lieutenant Colonel—is actually calling for the death penalty under the charge of treason (Joffrey Baratheon, eat your heart out). Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has dropped the T-bomb as well.
But opinions like Toobin and Peters (and a few others) appear to be the exception than the norm. On one side of the aisle, conservative media loves the story because its keeps its scandal streak against the President going (only 50 more to go before catching DiMaggio). On the other side, liberal media loves the story because it’s like, you know…Erin Brockovich and stuff…just a brave citizen standing up to the man. And remember the most important rule: NSA spying is only bad when the opposing party is doing it.
Keep this in mind as well: Mr. Snowden is guilty of one of the largest intelligence breaches in U.S. history. But thanks to being the human version of Seabiscuit, not much is being discussed in terms of the national security implications his decision may have set in motion. And that damage doesn’t even include how many future moles—justified and otherwise–Snowden’s actions may have inspired.
In rooting for Edward, will the media really be compelled to ask if the government can fight a war on terror (or whatever it’s being called these days) while always worrying if clandestine programs are at risk of being exposed?
I’m just the media guy here and will not make a judgment one way or the other. That’s not the point of the column. Instead (for the sake of this discussion), the question really is: Are we witnessing a whole new kind of media bias here?
For now, it’s a stroke of genius for Snowden to cast himself as a sympathetic figure. If and when he is brought to justice (he’s currently holed up in a hotel in Hong Kong), many potential jury members may have already been swayed in his favor…all thanks to the acclamatory coverage Snowden has received.
Media bias comes in many forms.
Sometimes it isn’t a matter of left vs. right.
But underdog versus authority…

Read More

MRC's Tim Graham Discusses Networks' Fading Coverage of IRS Scandal on Fox Business

Here is an article from NewsBusters (with video) discussing how Media Research Center's Tim Graham discussing how there is now less and less coverage of the alleged Obama IRS scandal, even though a recent poll showed that Americans find it to be a serious story:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/06/01/mrcs-tim-graham-discusses-networks-fading-coverage-irs-scandal-fox-busines

MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham appeared on the Fox Business program Varney & Co. on Friday morning to discuss the fading network coverage of the IRS scandal, even though a new poll shows the American people find that to be the most serious Obama scandal.
Substitute host Charles Payne asked if the media were turning tough on Obama. “We already have disturbing signs that the networks are dropping off this,” Graham said, since IRS official Lois Lerner refused to testify and took the Fifth.
Graham said we may have a “two-tiered system” of coverage like in President Clinton’s second term, where the “professionals” in print media and cable news cover the scandals, while the networks cover fluff like whether Beyonce is pregnant again.
"We have something like Mr. Shulman going to the White House more than 157 times now. That is not something the networks have covered. That is not a concept that they have ever expressed."
Monica Crowley added that Bob Schieffer announced the media have the power to determine the “shelf life” of a scandal.
Graham replied: "This is one of the ways the news media wields enormous power over our political culture, in what it defines as a scandal, and what it defines as a ‘so-called controversy,’ to use the terms they like to use. When the AP wrote a story the other day that even the AP scandal was an ‘alleged scandal,’ then you know these people are desperate to say it’s not a scandal."

Read More

Media late to coverage of abortion doctor's trial

Here is an article from USA Today stating that media failed in properly covering the trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell.  In May, Gosnell was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder and on one count of involuntary parole.  Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/14/media-late-to-coverage-of-abortion-doctors-trial/2082519/

Suddenly, the trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell is all over the news.
Gosnell is charged with causing the deaths of a patient and seven babies allegedly born alive as well as performing illegal late-term abortions. Testimony last week included grisly details of infant beheadings and baby feet stored in jars. Eight former employees of his West Philly clinic have been charged in connection with the case, and three have pleaded guilty to third-degree murder. In an opinion column in Thursday's USA TODAY, contributor Kirsten Powers chastised major media outlets for ignoring the trial, which began March 18.
That changed quickly. The Washington Post reported Friday that it will start covering the trial. Daily Beast reporter Megan McArdle acknowledges she should have covered it but "didn't want to think about" the crimes he was charged with. The case has been mentioned in Time, on CNN, in The Atlantic and all over the Web on blogs and Twitter.
Sensational details in the case were not unexpected. J.D. Mullane, a columnist for Pennsylvania's Bucks County Courier Times wrote in a story posted Sunday on PhillyBurbs.com that the court staff had set aside three rows of seats to accommodate up to 40 reporters Thursday, when some key witnesses were scheduled to testify. Only one reporter — Mullane — sat in the reserved seating. Mullane said a New York Times reporter showed up later that afternoon and stayed for a few minutes.
Much of the recent commentary was sparked by Powers' column, which said a search for news stories found no news shows on the three major national television networks had mentioned the Gosnell trial. "This should be on every news show and front page," wrote Powers, a Fox News political analyst and columnist for The Daily Beast. (USA TODAY has published several stories about the trial online, including two from the Associated Press and two from TheNews Journal in Wilmington Del., a Gannett paper.)
Some of the responses over the weekend defended media coverage against critics who suggested a conspiracy of silence. "The Gosnell story wasn't blacked out," Josh Dzieza of The Daily Beast wrote. He linked to stories published as far back as 2011, when Gosnell was charged with performing illegal late-term abortions.
Mollie Hemingway, who writes about religion and the media in a blog called "Get Religion," said the USA TODAY column brought to the forefront something religious groups, conservatives and abortion opponents had talked about for months. "But they have a limited audience," she says. Powers' column "revealed to a whole new audience what the media had been hiding from them."
Hemingway cautions against conspiracy theories. But, she says, journalists need to figure out how to avoid repeating similar mistakes.
"We have a lot of catchup to do," she says. We have to cover this (trial) well, cover it prominently, and we have to restore trust with our readers."

Read More

NANCE: Michele Bachmann’s legacy

Here is an article from Penny Young Nance from the Washington Times stating that although many media outlets and liberals are glad that Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachman is not seeking a fifth term, she made a made a big impact in the White House and paved the way for conservative women for years to come:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/5/michele-bachmanns-legacy/

While media outlets and liberal pundits are rejoicing after Rep. Michele Bachmann announced she would not seek a fifth term for office in 2014, women are stopping to say, “Thank you for paving the way for political greatness.”
The Minnesota Republican’s announcement was released in a video to her supporters last week in which she said, “My good friends, after a great deal of thought and deliberation I have decided next year I will not seek a fifth congressional term to represent the wonderful people of the 6th District of Minnesota. After serious consideration I am confident this is the right decision.”
It is not easy to run for political office — much less for president — but Mrs. Bachmann taught women that we can do it with poise and success. Remember, it was not long ago that conservative women had no national platform or political standing. Now, thanks to Mrs. Bachmann, we watched a woman win the Iowa straw poll and make a legitimate run for the White House. Whether you agree with her politics or not, one has to acknowledge that Mrs. Bachmann successfully wedged the door open a little further for women, jamming her high heel into the political landscape and showing the “good old boys” she was able to hold her own, even on the presidential debate platform.
According to a reporter friend of mine, he was at home watching the first 2012 GOP presidential debate in Iowa with his young daughter who turned to him and declared, “Dad, I want to be the president when I grow up. I want to be just like that lady.” Don’t we all?
Mrs. Bachmann shined during the presidential debates. Those of us who know her were not surprised, but the American public for the first time got a glimpse of her passion and grasp of policy by the way she elucidated her strong conservative principles. She came across with a great deal of clarity and intelligence. As commentators noted, she tended to outperform her much-more-experienced male counterparts in the debates. Daily Beast columnist Howard Kurtz admitted she shouldn’t be underestimated, saying, “Bachmann is relatively new to the national stage, but as anyone who has watched her in action understands, she knows how to play this game.”
However, the rhetoric became particularly foul and demeaning once the rest of the national press realized Mrs. Bachmann’s overwhelming appeal to voters. The worst display of prejudice came in August 2011 when the liberal Newsweek magazine published an unflattering picture of the GOP presidential candidate. They purposefully turned an otherwise attractive conservative woman into someone who looks crazy and smeared her with the headline “Queen of Rage.” Even the abortion-loving, man-hating National Organization for Women couldn’t ignore the blatant discrimination and joined Concerned Women for America in defense of the candidate’s dignity. This was all the more infuriating when contrasted with the lovingly airbrushed pictures of Michelle Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Most recently, an opinion column written by Gail Collins bid a mocking farewell to Mrs. Bachmann, comparing her and Sarah Palin’s appearances to their popularity. Ms. Collins wrote, “You have to wonder if the secret is that, by political standards, they both look extremely hot. And if it’s their appearance that made them such stars, is that for the benefit of the Tea Party men or the Tea Party women?”
What message are we sending women — especially conservative women — if nobody objects to a New York Times columnist essentially say they are nothing but a pretty face? It’s no secret that conservative women are subject to more scrutiny than their male or liberal counterparts. Did anyone ever care what suit and tie combo the men wore during the debates? Of course not, but every media outlet critiqued how “presidential-looking” Mrs. Bachmann was. Forget the content of her speech — how did she look? Those who knew her weren’t surprised to see Mrs. Bachmann neglect the usual gender-baiting and derogatory name-calling to which many hurt egos in Washington resort. Never once did she retaliate in slinging back insults, though there was plenty of ammunition. Voters and onlookers grew to respect her for being mature and focusing on the issues that mattered to her and the American people.
America needs more women in politics, and Mrs. Bachmann showed that conservative, pro-life, pro-family, fiscally responsible, intelligent women have a place at the table. Women like her have proven resilient and thick-skinned. In the end, it’s never about being liked but fighting for the principles in which you believe. This is the legacy Michele Bachmann leaves behind, and conservative women are exceptionally grateful. We look forward to seeing what’s next and, as my mother once told me, “Start to worry when they stop talking.”

Read More

Bachmann exit helps GOP scrub stupid away

Here is an article from CNN contributor LZ Granderson stating that the Republican Party made progress when Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachman decided not to seek re-election for a fifth term:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/29/opinion/granderson-bachmann/index.html?hpt=op_bn6

(CNN) -- Remember when Sarah Palin was the face of the Republican Party?

It only seems like yesterday she was the Republicans' most talked-about candidate for president. Now she's gone from prominent voice on Fox News to a reality TV star whose latest project is a book entitled "A Happy Holiday IS a Merry Christmas."

That's almost as good a book title as Christine O'Donnell's "Troublemaker: Let's Do What It Takes To Make America Great Again" and way better than the snoozer Sharron Angle is pushing: "Right Angle: One Woman's Journey to Reclaim the Constitution."

Immigration reform may be the aspect of the GOP rebranding strategy that gets the most headlines, but heeding Gov. Bobby Jindal's call to "stop being the stupid party" also appears to be high on the party's list.

Hence the marginalizing of Palin and the rest of the party's Sisterhood of the Traveling Rants. In 2010, the sisterhood was everywhere, speaking in front of big crowds, making stuff up as they went along. Now they're at the kids' table, trying to make room for one more: Michele Bachmann.

"I fully anticipate the mainstream liberal media to put a detrimental spin on my decision not to seek a fifth term," Bachmann said in a nearly nine-minute video in which she announced that she is not seeking re-election.

In another example of what has become the norm for conservatives who become annoyed by facts, Bachmann pointed a finger at the so-called mainstream liberal media and not at her former national field coordinator, Peter Waldron, who filed an ethics complaint.

She's accusing the media of spin instead of owning up to the fact that House Republicans have quietly shunned her or that her well-documented penchant for massaging the truth has drawn criticism from conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly.

In April 2009, while arguing against climate change on the House floor, Bachmann said, "there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas."

In 2011, in regards to HPV vaccination, she said a mother told "me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter. It can have very dangerous side effects."

This year, she gave a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conerence, slinging hunks of red-meat untruths about President Obama, and when she was questioned about the facts of her speech by CNN's Dana Bash, she ran away.

Bachmann said she is not disappearing and vows to keep fighting for America, a thought I'm sure makes Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cringe.

He's trying to limit the number of ignorant, controversial statements that derailed more than one campaign during the 2012 election. Bachmann is a walking ignorant, controversial statement waiting to happen.

"We have to be persistent but patient," Priebus said in response to the handful of notable Republicans who have suggested impeaching Obama over the IRS scandal. "I think where there's smoke, there's fire. If we present ourselves to the American people as intelligent, we're going to be in a great place as far as showing that this administration is not transparent, is obsessed with power and hates dissent. But you don't call for impeachment until you have evidence."

Bachmann looks forward to future, but not in the House

Bachmann said it was worse than Watergate, and no, she presented no evidence to support such claims.

The fact is, the brand of spitfire politics Bachmann, Palin et al. employ is usually not patient or intelligent. It's often irresponsible hyperbole designed to generate buzz as opposed to inform. If directed properly, it's an effective way to win an election. But the problem with spitfire is that it's sometimes hard to control.

The sisterhood was hard to control, and on more than one occasion, the party was burned because of it. That's why slowly, methodically, politically, the most famous members of 2010's sisterhood have been extinguished, done in by the fact that far too often they had no idea what they were talking about.

Think about it: Three years ago, Palin was a rock star who had Democrats on the run.

Now she's writing a Christmas book.

Thankfully, Susan Collins was too levelheaded to be a part of the group. Unfortunately, Olympia Snowe was too levelheaded to stay a part of Congress. One can only hope scrubbing stupid away can help bring respect back to a party that handed a lot of it over in exchange for the 2010 midterm election.

Assuming Bachmann survives the ethics investigation, I'm sure a new book is in her future as well. I just hope bookstores have the good sense to put it under "fiction."

Read More