Huh? Salon writer on Benghazi:"If the 3 new witnesses don’t get the attention they deserve, Fox News and its ilk deserve much of the blame."—
Brit Hume (@brithume) May 07, 2013
Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald might have a point when he accuses Fox News of “pushing bogus story lines on Benghazi.” After all, Fox (and four other networks) did give airtime to Amb. Susan Rice to explain how the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans was actually a spontaneous protest inspired by a YouTube video. There’s no bigger bogus story line than that.
Now, on the eve of testimony from three Benghazi whistleblowers, Salon is concerned that these new witnesses won’t be taken seriously. Why not? Fox News has been so eager to embarrass the Obama administration —which hasn’t seemed to have done anything to help the Benghazi survivors tell their stories — that it has tainted the investigation with bogus reporting. That was news to Fox’s Brit Hume, who called Salon’s analysis “amazing.”
“Unlike the vast majority of the new information brought forward by the conservative media since the attack, the three whistle-blowers seem credible,” writes Seitz-Wald. So, how about that vast amount of information brought forward by the mainstream/liberal media on Benghazi? Was that credible? We don’t remember — we lost track among all of the coverage of Fast and Furious and the Gosnell trial. That’s not to say liberal outlets ignored the story completely: Salon did pitch in to the investigation with pieces like “Susan Rice’s cowardly critics,” and Slate waded in just deeply enough to claim that “Republican charges of a cover-up are pure fiction.”
Now that Salon has gone on record calling the whistleblowers credible, we’re interested in the direction its coverage will take. Benghazi was a long time ago: is tomorrow the day we begin to get the real story?