I donāt like reading the New York Times in the morning because Iām always afraid my head will explode and that would make it difficult to go through the rest of the day. My aforementioned head almost did explode when I read this headline on page one:
I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives GOP an Issue to Seize On
Get it? The real story isnāt that the IRS abused its considerable power by giving special scrutiny to groups with the name āTea Partyā or āPatriotā in their title ā¦ or that they actually went far beyond those keywords and took aim at groups seeking to āmake America a better place to liveā or those who would ācriticize how the country is being run.ā No, the real story is that this gives Republican an issue to seize on.
Arenāt Democrats interested in seizing on this despicable behavior by one of the most powerful agencies of the federal government? The New York Times, Iām guessing, never thought about that.
Hereās the problem, as succinctly summarized on Hot Air:
āIf itās a scandal involving Republicans, the story is the scandal. If itās a scandal involving Democrats, the story ā or at least a significant part of it ā is whether and how Republicans will āpoliticizeā the scandal for their advantage.
Itās the same with Benghazi. Liberal journalists are more concerned with how Republicans will use the apparent cover-up to hurt Hillary Clintonās chances in 2016 than they are with finding out what really went wrong and who tried to mislead the American people about it.
Hereās Exhibit A, a headline in the Los Angeles Times: āāPartisan politics dominates House Benghazi hearingā ā¦ as if this is Washington politics as usual and weāre not going to learn anything from the witnesses who swore to tell the truth.
Too many Washington journalists see everything through a prism of politics. Benghazi isnāt about the death of four Americans ā¦ itās about the future of Hillary Clinton. The IRS scandal isnāt about the abusive use of federal government power ā¦ itās about how the GOP will use it to score political points.
But even if you play by these rules, why isnāt the story on page one of the New York Times about how Democrats in the Obama administration may have been going after conservative groups ā¦ for political gain?
Why isnāt the Benghazi story framed in a way that questions Hillary Clinton and Barack Obamaās political spin? Is she trying to stay out of trouble precisely because she wants to run for president? Was Mr. Obama more concerned about winning re-election, running in part on the phony premise that he had al-Qaeda on the run, than he was in admitting early on that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack in Benghazi? Is he now more concerned about his reputation than ā¦ well, than anything else?
There has been a subtle shift in how Mr. Obamaās most loyal base, the so-called mainstream media, are treating him. When ABC News revealed the emails about Benghazi and their many re-writes to scrub any reference to terrorism (instead blaming a dopey video for the attacks) that gave mainstream journalists permission to question the president in a way they hadnāt before. If Fox came up with those emails the mainstream media response would have been a giant yawn.
There may be a new, less adoring relationship between the slobbering media and their hero, the president ā especially after it came out that his justice department got a secret court order to go through phone records of journalists at the Associated Press. Now thatās something they can really get worked up over. Benghazi? Who cares! IRS? Big deal. But when you go after journalists, theyāll turn that into Watergate, the sequel.
But if there is a new tougher relationship between the press and the president, Iām guessing it wonāt last long.