NYT scolded by public editor for keeping Libya hearing coverage off front page

 :: Main :: Politics

View previous topic View next topic Go down

NYT scolded by public editor for keeping Libya hearing coverage off front page

Post by TexasBlue on Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:50 am

NYT scolded by public editor for keeping Libya hearing coverage off front page

Fox News
Oct. 13, 2012


Amid concerns that some in the mainstream media are downplaying the Libya terror attack, The New York Times' public editor scolded The Grey Lady this week for burying its coverage of the first congressional hearing on the deadly assault.

The pointed rebuke from Margaret Sullivan, whose job is to represent the interests of Times readers, said the hearing story "belonged on The Times's front page."

Instead, it was on A3 -- while other major papers like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post put it on the cover Thursday.

"I can't think of many journalistic subjects that are more important right now, or more deserving of aggressive reporting," Sullivan wrote, adding that readers wrote to her "in dismay" about the apparent downplaying.

The Times' editors explained to Sullivan that they thought the hearing was politicized, and that's why they tucked coverage inside. Meanwhile, stories on Lance Armstrong and other topics made their way to the front page.

Executive Editor Jill Abramson, while defending the paper's overall Libya coverage, said "congressional hearings are not all about fact-finding."

Managing Editor Dean Baquet said: "I didn't think there was anything significantly new in it."

However, as coverage elsewhere of the hearing noted, the lengthy and combative session included testimony from former security officers who expressed deep frustration about being rebuffing in their pleas for more diplomatic protection.

State Department officials, meanwhile, did offer more information about why the administration wrongly claimed the attack was tied to a protest over an anti-Islam film.

BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings, who has had his run-ins with the State Department over Libya coverage, tore into the Times and other media outlets for playing down the hearing.

He claimed the "jaw-dropping testimony" on the Hill "completely shredded the Obama Administration's original story about what happened in Benghazi, while offering damning evidence that the State Department ignored multiple, urgent requests for better security."

Hastings said "this is the kind of unfolding scandal" that usually takes off in the media. But he noted the Times gave it just a "23-word tease" on its front page, and none of the network nightly newscasts on Wednesday led with the hearing.

"Certainly, it's hard to imagine that under a Bush administration it would be treated the same. If this kind of catastrophic attack -- and cover-up -- had happened in 2004 or 2008, it would have likely dominated presidential debates and re-shaped election coverage," Hastings wrote.


Last edited by TexasBlue on Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:52 am; edited 1 time in total


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not in favor of fairness. I’m in favor of freedom, and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to decide what’s fair.” - Milton Friedman
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: NYT scolded by public editor for keeping Libya hearing coverage off front page

Post by TexasBlue on Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:51 am

The Media Dropped The Ball On Benghazi

Michael Hastings
BuzzFeed Staff
Oct. 11, 2012


The jaw-dropping testimony at the House Oversight Committee Wednesday completely shredded the Obama Administration’s original story about what happened in Benghazi, while offering damning evidence that the State Department ignored multiple, urgent requests for better security at the American outpost in eastern Libya.

“It was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” said Eric Nordstrom, a former Regional Security Office at the U.S. Embassasy in Libya,. “How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through.”

Nordstorm testified that he'd been "fighting a losing battle" to get 12 more agents to the outpost, and was told by his superior "you're asking for the sun, moon and the stars."

The hearings also revealed deep divisions within the administration over its handling of the response in the aftermath of the tragedy. The White House stuck to the fiction that the attack was somehow caused by a ridiculous anti-Islam video, and continued to suggest there had been a protest occurring at 10 p.m. that acted as cover.

Neither of the key elements in the administration’s first draft of the Benghazi story — which, coincidentally, helped create the perception that this was a spontaneous, unforeseeable uprising rather than a preventable intelligence failure — ultimately turned out to be true.

And in the latest and most disturbing bit of news, we learned Wednesday night on “Anderson Cooper 360” that the State Department is stonewalling the mother of one of the victims, Sean Smith. (This despite the recent claims that State had the best interests of the families at heart.)

On Cooper’s show, Pat Smith said she had been personally promised information about her son by President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Panetta. “I begged them to them to tell me what happened,” said Smith. “No one, not one person has ever — ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people.”

Taken together, this is the kind of unfolding scandal the media typically loves to make Issue Number One — the drip-drip quality of each revelation; the gut-wrenching drama of that horrible night; the shoddy treatment of the victims from the State Department; the fact it should have been prevented, and smoking guns that prove it; Hillary Clinton’s political future; and, the shifting explanations from the White House during an election year, calling into question one of its signature foreign policy victories.

Instead, Benghazi has been a below-the-fold story. The New York Times gave Libya a 23-word tease on the bottom of its front page the morning after the hearings. And not one nightly newscast Wednesday led with Benghazi — in favor of horse-race coverage, NBC and CBS had it as their third story, and ABC as their second.

So why hasn’t it yet captured the collective media mind? Republican critics make the case that it’s the pro-Obama main-stream media at work again, and the Republican National Committee has kept up a steady stream of product, making the case that Benghazi should be a much bigger issue.

And they might have a point — more than a few members of the media covering the story have privately wondered whether the widespread editorial disinterest can be chalked up to Big Media’s preference for Obama.

Certainly, it's hard to imagine that under a Bush administration it would be treated the same. If this kind of catastrophic attack — and cover-up — had happened in 2004 or 2008, it would have likely dominated presidential debates and re-shaped election coverage.

“Romney had front pages of fucking The Toledo Blade attacking him for his press release after Benghazi,” one Republican official told BuzzFeed. “You can quibble over timing , but there was outrage on the cable channels about it. Where are those voices now saying, ‘what’s the administration bungling here, didn’t they fuck this up?’”

It’s not that there hasn’t been excellent coverage of Libya: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and ABC News, among others outlets, have delivered outstanding on-the-ground reporting and scoops from inside the State Departement and White House. In fact, before yesterday’s hearing, the only credible information about Benghazi had come from the media, not the government, which was too afraid until just last week to go back in. (Another American official murdered or kidnapped in Libya would have been a political knockout punch.)

Yet that reporting hasn’t yet driven the political framework surrounding the attack, according to critics. “Most of the media stations covered the events, trying to figure out the details. But the big gap was in the political coverage of it,” continued the Republican official. “We’ve had a lot of conversations with big TV stations and newspaper about the gap.”

Media critics contacted by BuzzFeed said they weren’t quite sure if whether it was an instance of liberal media bias at work, or just a lack of appetite for foreign news.

“I’m dismayed this story was unspooled so slowly,” says Andrew Beaujon, a media critic at the Poynter Institute. “I thought the story would dominate national news after Michael Birnbaum [of The Washington Post] reported last week that the U.S. consulate still hadn’t been secured and that he’d easily gathered personal information about Libyan contractors in the consulate.”

“What does get done just isn’t as entertaining as, say, Mitt Romney talking about Big Bird,” adds Beaujon.

Says Dartmouth media professor Brendan Nyhan: “I wonder whether the aftermath of the first debate drowned out the Benghazi allegations, which might have received more attention if it looked like Obama was cruising to victory.”

“Typically,” said Nyhan, “you would expect more coverage of weakness or failed security policies under a Democratic administration.”

Robert Entman, media scholar and author of Scandal and Silence, rejects the liberal bias claim completely, and gives the administration the benefit of the doubt. “The White House, like every other one, deals with the problem of having to process uncertain information under time pressure, with conflicting reports on the ground, different bureaucracies protecting their turfs and shading info they pass on to the president to suit their own interests,” said Entman.

“The idea that the media have been light-peddling this because they love Obama is also silly,” he adds.

There is, though, one particularly surprising dog that has not barked in the coverage of the events: what happened in Benghazi has not led to any discussion about whether intervening in Libya was the right idea — not the kind of immediate second-guessing that came with the Iraq War.

The intervention was sold as a way to get involved in the Middle East without paying a high price — France and other NATO allies taking the lead, U.S. muscle and technology backing them up, no boots on the ground. And perhaps it has been a cheap intervention — after all, it’s only cost four Americans lives.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I’m not in favor of fairness. I’m in favor of freedom, and freedom is not fairness. Fairness means somebody has to decide what’s fair.” - Milton Friedman
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: NYT scolded by public editor for keeping Libya hearing coverage off front page

Post by Mark85la on Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:13 pm

But they felt the need to put two articles on Todd Akin's ridiculous remarks on the front page the same week Biden made the "chains" comment. Four people being murdered is not newsworthy though.
avatar
Mark85la



Birthday : 1985-12-02
Age : 31

Back to top Go down

Re: NYT scolded by public editor for keeping Libya hearing coverage off front page

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 :: Main :: Politics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum