Court Eunuchs of MSM won’t tell us, so thank you, BBC!

“Court Eunuchs” seems pretty harsh, no?

(photo courtesy of

The first time I saw the Mainstream Media referred as such, in this piece, wherein Roger Simon argues that the Benghazi cover-up is worse than Watergate:

Watergate caught numerous public officials lying, including the president of the United States, but Benghazigate has all that and more.

It involves the terrorist murder (not an electorally irrelevant burglary) of government officials, their reckless endangerment, the undermining of the Bill of Rights and free speech by our own administration in response to Islamist threats, and, ultimately, the complicity of that same administration, consciously or unconsciously, in the downfall of Western civilization.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media function as their more-than-willing accomplices in this downfall, in essence as Obama’s court eunuchs.

I thought, “ow…that’s gonna leave a mark.”

So, I’m skimming this this piece by Mark Stein and I read:

…Even more extraordinary, on Sept. 14, fewer than two dozen inbred, illiterate goatherds pulled off the biggest single destruction of U.S. airpower since the Tet Offensive in 1968, breaking into Camp Bastion (an unfortunate choice of name) in Afghanistan, killing Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Raible, and blowing up a squadron’s worth of Harriers. [emphasis mine -admin] And, even though it was the third international humiliation for the United States in as many days, it didn’t even make the papers. Because the court eunuchs at the media are too busy drooling over Obama’s appearance as what he calls “eye candy” on the couch between Barbara and Whoopi.

And I thought, oh yeah…I did see something about that slip through my twitter timeline and was waiting to hear more about it. But then I forgot all about this story, because “more” never came, at least not from the US Press.

Do a Google search on “Camp Bastion”, and it’s all BBC, baby, all BBC! Add the word “assault” to the search and you do find a story in the New York Times…in the “world” section, under Asia Pacific, with an headline about the Taliban’s reach.

I guess that’s one way to say “see, we reported on it” while insuring that a story doesn’t really make many ripples in the public awareness.

Kind of like the “Fast and Furious” story — the gun-running operation which (contrary to this administration’s line) was not started “under Bush” and which took place without the knowledge of the Mexican government, and which program’s toll on human lives has been rather stoutly ignored by the press — is suddenly seeing a little coverage at least on days when most people don’t pay much attention to news. The US mainstream press could have covered the story any time these past 16 months or so, but it has taken the insistent attention by Univision to force the American press to, if not keep up, at least do enough to allow for plausible deniability when they’re asked why they ignored the story.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for the press to report that the White House is urging the delay of job layoffs until after the election.

Btw, we’re using drones in Pakistan? Are we at war with Pakistan, and I missed it?

Also, as Glenn Reynolds notes: once upon a time, something like this would have outraged the press. But perhaps they didn’t mean it, then.

Finally, this is a little off-topic, but I just have to make one more point about how lucky this administration has been in its protectors. Remember how the Clinton administration and governments throughout the world believed intelligence reports that Iraq had WMD? And remember how, when that intel proved wrong, the line went not that “Bush believed bad intel and acted on it” but “Bush lied…”? Remember that? I bet he’d have appreciated it if, back then, the intel community had said “blame us not the WH” for their lapses, as they’re doing here. Just sayin’.

UPDATE: In case you missed it in all the embeds, do watch this timeline of the Benghazi story. It’s well done.

Are the MSM beginning to feel some pressure
to behave like real journalists? Are they feeling guilty for their malpractice? Micky Kaus writes:

Am I crazy or is today’s NBC Nightly News broadcast actually almost fair in Obama vs. Romney terms? … The network isn’t exactly harsh on Obama regarding the highly suspicious intelligence-agency blame-taking on Libya misdirection–but Andrea Mitchell does offer only two alternatives: 1) “a coverup” 2) “trying to avoid acknowledging mistakes this close to an election.” … Is MSM Guilt finally kicking in? (Thanks, Howard Fineman!). Or was whoever’s in charge of skewing the coverage (maybe his name is Brian) just off for the night? …

On FB, John Leo writes:

The mainstream press is suddenly playing the presidential election straight, with strong criticism of Obamanomics, the gun- running scandal and the mess in Libya. Even Andrea Mitchell is doing actual reporting. This could be the conventional attempt to prop up the losing candidate to make the race tighter and more newsworthy, but there’s also the possibility that the laggard mainstreamers have caught a whiff of the public’s disdain for their work.

Given that the media’s “sudden” interest in reporting what they have been determinedly ignoring all these months is happening on a Friday-Saturday, when news viewership/readership is down, I think they’re just giving themselves some room for plausible deniability against criticism, but then, journalists were my first heroes, and seeing them dissolve themselves for the sake of a political party and an ideology has made me very cynical about the press.

Or, you know, maybe they just don’t like being thought of as “court eunuchs”

Whatever the case, Krauthammer has clearly had enough of it.

Reason: 3 Reasons why the Obama administration didn’t want to admit Benghazi was a terror attack

Ross Douthat: The Media Bias that Matters

Howard Fineman (at Huffpo)
maybe the press should ask Obama some real questions. I’d settle for a vetting as thorough as any Mr. Romney or Ms. Palin went through.

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!


About Elizabeth Scalia