While many lament the prevalence of “low information voters,” we at RATM concern ourselves more with the “misinformed voter,” those Americans who actually do take the time to inform themselves by watching the news or sacrificing all day Sunday to pore over the self-important New York Times., but who are betrayed by these “news” sources they rely on.
The New York Times distinguished itself earlier this year by not denouncing President Obama’s lie about keeping our health care, insurance, plans or doctors if we like them. Period. Instead, they sloughed this blatant and oft-repeated lie as “misspeaking.”
That’s our esteemed “paper of record:” lying to protect a liar. We see this time and again with the media who, as Chris Matthews admitted but all rest clearly agree, will do anything to help this president succeed.
But this time they have crossed a line in a way that takes one’s breath away.
This time, they have taken the single most horrific event of the Obama presidency – not the one that directly impacts nearly every person living in this country, the one he lied about, period, but the one where people actually died – namely, the massacre in Benghazi, and despite all the facts that have come to light, they are deliberately, with disdain for the American people, falling back on a lie that we all know to be false. A youtube video caused it, rather than it being carried out by an al quaeda or other international terrorist group? Didn’t we already know on September 12th last year that that was a lie?
The lie that Susan Rice was sent on the propaganda circuit to shove down our throats?
The lie that then-Secretary of State continued to propagate even in front of the caskets of the slain men?
The lie, frankly, behind which the presumptive 2016 Democrat candidate Hillary is being so blatantly and sickeningly protected.
And wait a second. Didn’t Obama himself claim (falsely) that he said, that next morning in the Rose Garden, that it HAD been a terrorist attack? You know, the lie during that debate that Candy Crowley lied to support, the lie covered by a lie that seemed to take the wind out of Mitt Romney’s sails? The one she recanted on well after the damage was done?
For a bit of fact-checking on that series of lies, read here. Really, it’s too hard for me to follow. All I know is, he lied, then lied about lying. And nobody cared.
Why does it matter? Because the New York Times is, shockingly, still revered by too many of the self-described “intellectual” “elite” who for some incomprehensible reason feel informed by virtue of having wasted their Sundays on the party-line shoved at them in the guise of considered reporting.
It also matters because other media outlets seem to follow the lead of the paper that claims to report “all the news that’s fit to print.” Incredibly, fewer and fewer news sources bother to actually do their own reporting, and echoing the New York Times is the easy way out.
So here we have the “Gray Lady” continuing the lie, signalling to all the rest of the media, the Democratic party, and Hillary herself that they, like Chris Matthews, will do anything they can to help Ms. Clinton succeed, even while betraying the trust of the American people, dishonoring the memory of the slain men, and effectively spitting the faces of their families. Are you angry yet?
The truth has no meaning; it’s about the agenda, and the agenda is to smooth the way for their chosen candidate.
Some of the reports on the outrageousness of the Times’ dishonesty:
From Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz via the Blaze: ““I read this report and I was really incredulous,” he said. “It seems to be an effort to revive this discredited theory that the anti-Islam video was behind it. But when you read behind the article closely, there’s various statements where the author seems to downplay the links to terrorist groups.” read more
From Daniel Greenfield at FrontPageMag:
Major media outlets have a new disinformation tactic. Instead of a fact-check, which used to be their old tactic, they drop a voluminous multi-part essay that claims to be the product of intensive reporting, but doesn’t really offer much of anything new, except an attempt at reviving a discredited liberal narrative, which its own reporting doesn’t support.
From Allahpundit who provides a terrific account of the layers of lies:
[T]here is abundant open-source reporting that contradicts Kirkpatrick’s sweeping claim about “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” And most problematic for this revisionist account, some of that evidence comes from the Times itself in a story the paper published on October 29, 2012.
From FoxNews we have this and this (NY Times doing PR work for Hillary, WH on Benghazi? um, yeah! Is this a trick question?)
And from Huffington Post, we have this piece, focusing on Hillary and the evil Republicans out to get her for what even the NYT is no apparent reason.
As we watch this unfold, never forget: if we are silent, they are empowered. But if we speak up as so many have been, we – every one of us – can make a difference.
Some options:
From the NYTimes.come website: To report an error that calls for a correction, e-mail us or leave a message at 1‑888‑NYT‑NEWS (1‑888‑698‑6397).
Don’t forget about the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Hotline: 866-345-3662. I’d say this violates any standards of Ethics, wouldn’t you?
Head over to the NYT facebook page and chime in. https://www.facebook.com/nytimes/posts/10150370971784999
Whatever your preferred method of speaking out: DO IT.
This is one story we will not let go.