Here's How the LATimes Covered Today's Explosive Benghazi Hearings
Apparently the two big revelations today were Partisan Politics As Usual and Apricot Salsa.
Allah discusses this here, but even more interesting is his synthesis of two different stories: Left-wingers freaking out that the LATimes might become non-, um, neutral, should the Kochs buy it, and CBS bigs worrying that Sharyl Attkisson's accurate reporting on Benghazi is coming "dangerously close to advocacy."
At CBS? The once and future home of Dan Rather? Of Mike Wallace? Of Bob Schieffer? Perish the thought!
His notion is that the media's and the Democrats' (but I repeat myself) go-to method of dismissing a true but politically unhelpful story is to sneer "That's only a Fox story." Thus, having a troublemaker like Attkisson fouling Their Air with true (but politically unhelpful) reportage undermines their ability to sneer a story into nonexistence.
His theory, then, is that the liberal media wants to keep unhelpful stories "ghettoized" on conservative-only channels. Keep such reporting on outlets the rest of the media considers disreputable, and then no one respectable can say they're burying important stories.
I think he's right, but I'd add in the simple idea that the media considers the airwaves to be Their Air, their property -- and, like any property-owner, they want to exploit their property to their advantage and to their purposes.
These good Gramscians have fought hard to take over these institutions-- they'll be damned if they give any of it up now.