Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal and the NSA snooping have all failed thus far to cause the liberal mainstream media to break away from their instinctive partisan-protect mode into a cover regardless of political implication mode.
The betting here is that team Obama is counting on the liberal media giving them the breathing room they need to get things straightened out [on Obamacare] and so the liberal mainstream media will never come down too hard on them. Just enough to be able to say that “we did our jobs as journalists,” but never so much as to cause any real harm to the liberal cause."
Well, right on cue, CBS and the New York Times – two of Obama's biggest liberal media boosters -- are quickly walking back last Sunday's explosive 60 Minutes piece, the one in which a purported eyewitness implicated the Obama administration for botching up and covering up their response to the Benghazi terrorist attack that left four Americans dead on the anniversary of 9/11.
Here's what Logan of 60 Minutes said on Friday:
The correspondent for the disputed “60 Minutes'’ segment about the attack on the United States Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year apologized on the air Friday morning, saying it was a “mistake'’ to put on a security officer whose credibility has since been undermined by his diverging accounts of his actions that night.
The correspondent, Lara Logan, said on CBS This Morning that the news division was misled by the officer, adding, “We will apologize to our viewers, and we will correct the record on our broadcast on Sunday night.”
However, it's a fascinating (though to me, predictable) comment on liberal MSM style and intent. It's clear what the liberal media want: They want to continually protect liberal politicians and the liberal doctrine from any criticism, but they want to maintain an appearance of credibility and neutrality, so they can say to their potential critics:
"See? We did a good job of investigative journalism. We even criticized the President's and the Democrats' positions and statements, and we were fully prepared to stick by that, because, hey, after all, we are some good, world-class investigative journalists. But upon further world-class investigative work on our part, we just happened to find out that the source criticizing President Obama was untrustworthy and not credible – so we have to retract our original critical story. Oh well, so sorry."
If it was a story praising a Democrat/liberal, they'd be "sticking by their source," presenting the story as true and accurate, unless and until definitive conflicting evidence came forth. It would take a lot to dislodge them from a pro-Democrat story.
But should even the slightest whiff of doubt come wafting their way concerning the veracity or accuracy of an anti-liberal news source, Wham! The liberal media jump to dismiss all charges against the liberal.
Anti-liberal news sources are regarded by the liberal MSM with skepticism, unless actual recorded evidence, a smoking gun, or some other irrefutable proof is shown to the world. When that happens, liberals then revert to their "contextual excusability" or "moral relativism" explanations. They very rarely take direct responsibility for wrongdoing . There's always an "explanation."
However, anti-conservative news sources are regarded by the liberal MSM as unimpeachable paragons of virtue, never to be questioned. If an anti-conservative news source eventually proves to have been inaccurate, the liberal media playbook is to ignore setting the record straight, unless forced to do so. Then bury it on the bottom of p. 11 in 5-point type or put it in the "E" segment when most viewers have turned away.
It's a commentary on how quick the liberal MSM are to denigrate conservatives and how reluctant they are to criticize liberals. And give them the slightest reason to back off from any liberal criticism and they'll take it, without looking back or thinking twice.
This is how the liberal MSM influence the majority of the 20 percent undecided, casually-attentive voters over to the Democratic side. And it works.
Conservatives have yet to figure out a work-around.
