Journalism in the 21st Century

Scandal week . If this past week has brought anything to light for the media, it's that everyone but Fox News understated the Benghazi situation. This reporter, all along, was pushing for transparency and strongly suspected that President Obama and Secretary Clinton were covering up the truth. Suspecting is not the same as stating, conclusively, but it's the role of the press to follow curiosity as the clues unravel. Instead, what the so-called "liberal" press did, mostly, was accuse Fox News, the Republicans and those crazy Conservatives of a witch hunt. Yet in hindsight, even the fair and balanced Grey Lady needs to be squirming this week. Clearly, Obama wanted to be re-elected. What happened beyond that regarding the watered-down talking points indicates that his agenda was furthered before Susan Rice spoke on camera. Coincidence? Further, regarding the AP scrutiny from the Department of Justice, there is no reasonable explanation for the latter to snoop

I wasn't the biggest Obama supporter, but I came round. By the time he was elected, I'd joined the pandemonium, against the protestations of my one Republican friend: "He's up to something. I don't trust him." I told her I wasn't quite sure if I did either, but I had to support his (wildly) liberal agenda. However, ever since Benghazi or wait, maybe about the time all my friends started getting laid off, I began to question him again. Don't get me wrong: the alternative (Mitch Romney, as Letterman calls him) would have been national suicide. OK, that's dramatic. But so many scandals, so much subterfuge, so much telling the American public he had nothing to do with it. What will it be this week? Hillary on the Hill asking, "What difference does it make?" was some convincing emotion. She had to have known darn well what difference it makes/made. Shame on this president for all of these news items: Recession, Corexit in the Gulf of M