Media outlets opt to ignore fresh evidence on Benghazi

Media outlets opted to ignore fresh evidence, which surfaced in the hearing. Clinton had explicit information as to the cause of Benghazi. The revelations should have generated major headlines. If truth-telling were the prime objective, two documents would have been centerpieces of news reports.

Media Covers for Hillary and Benghazi

As Reported By James Hirsen for Newsmax:

Following the completion of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s long-awaited testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, mainstream media outlets dutifully went out and trumpeted Clinton’s carefully crafted appearance.

Evidently, there was at the same time a deliberate effort to dismiss one of the most highly significant news stories and to continue with the agenda of getting the current consensus Democrat elected.

Those in society who remember when the importance of the First Amendment now find themselves in the unexpected position of having contempt for a media they once esteemed.

The negative perspective has been precipitated in part by the intentional non-reporting of certain news stories and the purposeful shaping of select others.

In a shirking of their professional responsibilities, many members of the broadcast and print professions chose to disregard pertinent facts that came to light during the hearing, including that approximately 600 requests for more security by State Department personnel in Benghazi were left unfulfilled and the number of security agents present in Benghazi at the beginning of 2012 was the same number present on the day of the attacks — even though more than nine months had elapsed.

THERE IS MORE, KEEP READING:

Media Turns Two Blind Eyes to Benghazi 

Leave a Comment

Comment via Facebook

Comment via Disqus