Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Would you use an app that tells you the partisan affiliation of products you're considering buying?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share
Erik Wemple
On Twitter E-mail |  On Twitter Follow |  On Facebook Fan |  RSS RSS Feed
Posted at 10:07 AM ET, 09/25/2012

Commentator: Romney faces ‘most corrupt’ coverage ever


(Charlie Neibergall - AP)

Columnist Mona Charen is attacking the media for its treatment of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney is facing perhaps the most corrupt and tendentious coverage in presidential history, as members of the fourth estate eschew any semblance of integrity in their attempt to skew interpretations in favor of their pinup, Mr. Obama.

The first stop for Charen is revisiting the media’s coverage of Romney’s midsummer foreign trip, which was actually quite successful, she argues, despite the media’s collective argument that it was a gaffe-filled disaster. “Though he made one comment about security plans in London that could fairly be described as undiplomatic, it was a footnote.” Strong point.

The second stop is Benghazi, an episode that is becoming an embarassment for the president: “We are now witnessing the slow-motion implosion of the Obama administration narrative” regarding the circumstances of the attacks that killed four U.S. personnel, including ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

The official version of events, argues Charen, is unraveling. Thanks to whom? “Some news organizations,” she writes. Then comes a prediction in the negative:

Do not expect days or weeks of coverage about what a scandal this represents, about the administration’s failure to provide adequate security to American diplomats, about the administration’s persistence in a lie long after it was obvious that the attack in Libya was a terrorist strike.

We’ll finish up with just a few of the stories that do not amount to “days or weeks of coverage”: Wall Street Journal on security miscues prior to the attacks; CNN on Stevens’s security fears; Washington Post writes that official version of events “strain[s] credulity”; the Daily Beast on the administration’s “shaky narrative”; Examiner on White House “hiding from reality” on Benghazi; CBS News reports that “there was never an anti-American protest outside of the [Benghazi] consulate. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account of the incident”; and the Jerusalem Post writes in a headline, “US media casts doubt on official Libya account.”

By  |  10:07 AM ET, 09/25/2012

Tags:  benghazi, mona charen, christopher stevens, wall street journal, jerusalem post, benghazi attacks, media, corrupt media

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company