FROM THE RIGHT
Conservative media watchdog organization NewsBusters seizes on a key moment from PBS’s “Inside Washington,” when panelist Charles Krauthammer hammers away:
I just want to respond to my liberal pals over here. I can’t believe you guys are covering for the administration on the Susan Rice thing when they themselves said five days later it was obviously a terror attack. Obviously, everybody could see it. So why for a week did the administration pretend that it was a demonstration?
NewsBusters’ Noel Sheppard determines that Krauthammer is correct on the order of “100 percent.”
There is indeed an ambient lack of sufficient outrage over the poor and inconsistent accounting that the Obama administration gave in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. As this blog argued last week, the president and his key advisers simply didn’t feel enough heat on the question immediately following revelations that the official post-Benghazi storytelling was flawed, in the best of all possible interpretations. Just when is the White House press corps going to demand answers?
FROM THE LEFT
To keep a level of symmetry here in Mediology, let’s have a look at a post by Media Matters for America on what the organization calls three conspiracy theories pushed by Rush Limbaugh in one show. One is that the Obama administration engaged in a “cover-up” regarding Libya; next is that the administration is deliberately keeping the FBI out of Benghazi; and third is that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the maker of the infamous film “Innocence of Muslims,” has been jailed for offending the “regime.” Writes Media Matters: “Limbaugh said the ‘legal’ reason he was jailed was ‘for parole violation,’ but he insisted that the Obama administration must have played a hand in his jailing.”
Given Limbaugh’s history, I gotta say: These are three of the more harmless conspiracy theories in which the radio titan has dabbled.