So how exactly does the media get off trying to tell us that she "won" and that her Republican questioners "lost"? Essentially, they've decided it doesn't matter that Hillary lied and that she denied Stevens the security that would have saved his life (and laughed about it on national television), because you don't care. And why don't you care? Because they're going to tell you that you shouldn't.
PBS anchor Judy Woodruff, a creature of the Washington media mentality if ever there was one, gets right down to it here.
Let's lay out some things that we all sort of know but that need to be stated to frame this discussion: The media want a Democrat to succeed Obama, and since Hillary's pretty much the only option, they're going to carry water for Hillary even though they don't especially like her. So when Hillary gets herself caught lying and neglecting basic duties like keeping consulate staff safe from attacks, the media don't want to go after her but they need a plausible pretext not to. Otherwise they look like the propagandists they in fact are.
So their job is create a narrative for how they'll cover the story that will give Hillary a chance to wriggle out of her problem. The narrative will consist of two key issues: 1. Did we learn anything new? 2. Does the public care about this?
Now, we actually did learn something new. We learned in the first two days after the attack, Hillary sent e-mails to Chelsea and also to the president of Egypt making it clear that she knew Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack and not the result of a YouTube video, even as she went around in public for at least five days after that blaming the video, and in one instance even telling the father of one of those killed that the administration would "arrest and prosecute the man who made that film, who caused your son's death."
That's new. It's the strongest proof we've ever had that Hillary lied about what happened at Benghazi.
So how can the media say we learned nothing new? They say that because everyone already sort of knew Hillary lied, so stronger proof than we had before of something we already knew is something they can portray as "not new" and thus not worthy of playing up in coverage. And this also gets us to the second part of their gambit: They've decided that you don't care. That's where Woodruff is going in the video above. Fine, OK, she lied. What of it? What does anyone do with that?
The idea is that she can't be prosecuted, she can't be removed from the job she no longer holds, and she can't be prevented from running for president. So hey, there's no tangible action step anyone can take here, so why bother proving she's a liar? And because there's no tangible action step anyone can take, why should the public care that her lies were exposed?
So let's talk about that. If integrity among public servants matters, then the fact that the lie was proven is worthwhile all its own. If the media's job is actually to inform the public, then evidence presented in the e-mails Congressman Jordan read would be the lead story. It doesn't matter if there's no action step to take. The Secretary of State lied to the public about a terrorist attack, and that's news.
Ah, the media says, but it's not news because the public isn't interested. Oh? And how do they know the public isn't interested? Some will say it's because dishonesty is already "priced into the Clinton brand," meaning everyone knows the Clintons are liars so there's no value in making anything of it when they lie yet again.
But the real reason is that the media know they can keep any story from being top-of-mind with the public simply by quashing coverage of it. You want to think otherwise, but I don't. Very committed activist types may keep discussion of a matter alive amongst themselves, but the mainstream public quickly forgets about anything if the mainstream media stop covering it. And that even applies to how they cover a story. If they play it straight and report what came out of the hearings, yeah, Hillary's in a world of hurt. But if they report it like a boxing match where they analyze what happened blow-by-blow - who looked confident, who got in the best line, who looked confused, who nodded with self-assurance - then they can make her look like the "winner" and call it "a disaster for Republicans" even though they did in fact prove she's a liar.
If the public really understands and is focused on the fact that the Secretary of State blatantly lied about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans - who weren't as secure as they should have been in large part because of her - I have a hard time believing they really wouldn't care. But it's hard to focus on something when everyone who should be informing you about it refuses to do so.
By the way, none of this means Republicans were wrong to hold the hearing. It's their job to get at the truth, and they did. If they uncover the truth and no one else cares about it, then it's the people who don't care who are the problem. And they're going to elect the leaders they deserve, as they usually do.
It's a curious world we're living in when the media can declare Hillary Clinton triumphant after a day of questioning in which it was proved beyond all doubt that she knowingly lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and in which she chuckled on live television about Ambassador Christopher Stevens's desperate attempts to get more security at the compound - attempts that failed because of her, resulting in his murder.
Yeah, that's hilarious.
