Last week, Fox News drew a great deal of unflattering attention following a quick interview with military expert Tom Ricks regarding the Benghazi story. When asked about a particular aspect of the story by host Jon Scott, Ricks responded, "I think that Benghazi generally was hyped by this network especially "
That comment helped to get Ricks bounced off the air in around 90 seconds.
Now: Compare and contrast Ricks's assessment with that of Fox News White House reporter Ed Henry. Here are a few paragraphs from an Associated Press story on Henry:
Benghazi has proven an interesting case study. Henry rejects the notion that he works off Fox marching orders in discussing the issue, but said, "I wouldn't lie to you. I see that we're covering Benghazi a lot, and I think that should be something that we're asking about."
He said other news outlets have under-covered the story, since four Americans were killed and there's still some mystery about what the administration knew and when they knew about the attack.
"We've had the proper emphasis," he said. "But I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered."
"Some of our commentators," huh? Is it really so hard to say "Hannity"?