Before you go on to read this post, I must warn you this is not a
parody, nor is it some weird April fools day trick I forgot to post six
weeks ago.  Rod Serling is not going to walk into the room and tell you
that you have entered another dimension, nor is someone from an outer
limit going to warn you not to adjust your television set–all this is
true and really happened. 

Margaret Sullivan (the NY Times public editor not the actress) wrote a
column to answer the criticism of the NY Times lack of Benghazi coverage.

She characterizes the public’s desire for information about what happened in Benghazi as only a tool of the Obama critics.

The attacks last fall on an American diplomatic mission and C.I.A.
outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four American government
employees, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, have become a
flash point for critics of the Obama administration who see what
happened as proof of the president’s incompetence, or worse. They see
the aftermath as a cover-up.

So it wasn’t a particular surprise
that perturbed readers have been writing to me this week about The
Times’s silence, as they see it, in advance of hearings this week on
Capitol Hill. (Last fall, I criticized The Times for keeping a Libya hearing story off the front page when it was treated as major news elsewhere; I also wrote that it had failed to “connect the dots” for readers about what had happened.)

Those comments gained heat after The Washington Post led its print edition Tuesday with an article, quoting the United States diplomat Gregory Hicks, laying out a situation that he said might have averted a second attack.

The article written the day before the “whistle blower” hearings points out that

The Times has not picked up on that story line and, so far, has not
written about the hearings, although other news organizations have done

She goes on to point out stories the Times has written about Benghazi and sums concludes by blaming it on Fox News.

Here’s my take: The angry criticism of The Times on Benghazi has been
based largely on politics, not journalism, and fomented by Fox News.
(The conspiracy narrative goes like this: The Times is a liberal
newspaper unwilling to take on a liberal president and his
administration.) In fact, what’s been written in The Times has been
solid. But my sense is that, starting last fall, The Times has had a
tendency to both play down the subject, which has significant news
value, and to pursue it most aggressively as a story about political
divisiveness rather than one about national security mistakes and the
lack of government transparency. Many readers would like to see more on
that front, and so would I.

 Here’s my take Ms. Sullivan the New York Times has long since abandoned
its mission is to find the truth. If your editors at the Times had
bothered to get off their arses and do their job like other media
(instead of regurgitating tired liberal talking points) perhaps they
would have realize that it is the mainstream liberal media such as the
NY Times creating the political divisiveness by protecting the
administration instead of investigating what happened on Sept 11th in

Perhaps if the New York Times hadn’t spent the last few decades as
nothing but a progressive mouth-piece it would be increasing audience
and ad revenue the way Fox News does.

And please don’t think its just the Benghazi story, it’s Solyndra, it’s
Fast and Furious, it’s the way the paper characterized Mitt Romney using
the Obama campaign talking points, it’s the Gosnell trial….I could go
on and on but I don’t want to spend a week on this.

Fox News is not attacking the NY Times for political purposes, nor
because it’s a competitor, the NY Times is not in its league. Fox News
goes after the Times as part of their search for the truth an exercise
the NY Times could learn from.  Perhaps if the Times spent more effort
searching for the truth and a little less repeating progressive talking
points that “Grey Lady” wouldn’t have become what it is today, a tired
old money-losing whore prostituting the truth for progressive politics.