The New York Times — off the rails for an ulterior motive (Benghazi)

PowerLine ^ | 12/29/2013 | Paul Mirengoff

[mojito]

One shouldn’t question the good faith of a news report merely because one disagrees with the report’s conclusions. But David Kirkpatrick’s revisionist Benghazi account in the New York Times invites doubt about his commitment to unbiased reporting about that tragic affair.

My doubts stem both from the reporting itself and from what a person whom Kirkpatrick interviewed told me.

[....]

Kirkpatrick’s heavy reliance on self-serving comments by Libyans that also serve the purposes of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, etc, suggests that he had a story he wanted to write and was looking for confirmation of that story.

This suspicion was confirmed to me by one of the people Kirkpatrick interviewed. This person, probably as well informed about the Benghazi attack as any American, tells me that during the interview with Kirkpatrick (which occurred many months ago), it quickly became clear that he “had his conclusions and simply wanted me to confirm them, not refute them.” It also became clear, my source adds, that Kirkpatrick “was off the rails.”

[mojito]

Sounds to me like David "Pajama Boy" Kirkpatrick wants the job of press secretary in the 2nd Clinton administration, and he's showing everyone what a good and loyal soldier he will be.

The 2013 Duranty Award winner.

[mojito]

See also the follow up article:

David Kirkpatrick doubles down on bogus

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/david-kirkpatrick-doubles-down-on-bogus.php

[MestaMachine]

And don't miss this one either. Traitors upfront in our midst. Purposeful mendacity and everyone knows it. You wonder how they think they can get away with this...and you hope and pray they can't.

Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.

[CPT Clay]

Bump for later read.

[TChad]

It also became clear, my source adds, that Kirkpatrick “was off the rails.”

Did Paul Mirengoff's source expect Kirkpatrick to behave like a truth-seeking journalist? That's just dumb. What does he think the New York Times is?

[Brad from Tennessee]

“Off the rails” also describes the Times’ December 31st editorial, “The Facts About Benghazi,” defending Kirkpatrick's report and claiming that the newspaper has not endorsed Hillary. The Editorial Board takes the delusional view that Kirkpatrick is more expert at assessing the events of Benghazi than the collective resources of House and Senate committees with secret clearances:

“Mr. Issa talked of an administration ‘cover-up.’ Mr. Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who has called Benghazi a ‘preplanned, organized terrorist event,’ said his panel’s findings that Al Qaeda was involved was based on an examination of 4,000 classified cables. If Mr. Rogers has evidence of a direct Al Qaeda role, he should make it public. Otherwise, The Times’s investigation, including extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack, stands as the authoritative narrative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/the-facts-about-benghazi.html?_r=0

[meatloaf]

All the more reason to start Obama’s impeachment proceedings. Even though it’s doubtful the Senate would convict Obama, the House should be able to get enough dirt made public on Benghazi to damage Clinton enough to ruin her chances for 20116. Benghazi is the potential ruination of Clinton and the NYT knows it.

[mosesdapoet]

Why is this defaced object known as the “newspaper of record” still standing ? Let alone refered to ? Drives me crazy when so called conservative talk show hosts even refer to it as a creditable news source.

[lentulusgracchus]

Why is this defaced object known as the “newspaper of record” still standing ?

I had it thrown in my face once when a ministry-run website reported on the "hate crime/thoughtcrime" trial in Edmonton, Canada. A Protestant minister was pulled down from his pulpit and haled into court for preaching 120-proof Leviticus to his parishioners, by a couple of homosexual and ACLU-type Canadian NGO's stood up as a kangaroo court by Canada's "hate speech" law.

The reverend was acquitted and the law declared unconstitutional, but my correspondent didn't back down until I sent over links to a reputable Alberta paper after the trial got underway, which corroborated the ministry website's account. But it was a grudging climbdown by an otherwise-intelligent person.

That sort of "you don't have the facts, and if you did, you'd be liberal like me" stuff has always chapped me raw. Some people just don't care that Media people lie like rugs.