The Mainstream Media: Fooling No One But Fools

Today, the Los Angeles Times colluded with others in the mainstream media in a cynical attempt to change the subject and make the 9/11/12 attacks on the Libyan and Egyptian embassies about Mitt Romney and not about President Obama and his failed Middle Eastern policies.

If that sounds a bit paranoid, eavesdrop on members of the press corps prior to Romney's press conference following his supposed gaffe in criticizing Obama's response to the embassy attacks. In this audio clip , CBS news reporter Jan Crawford is caught on open mic prompting the other reporters on what to ask Romney. At the end of this clip she says she just wants to make sure that "no matter who he calls on, we're covered on the one question."

Ah, nothing like a bit of open mic. Sort of reminds you of Toto pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.

Aren't we getting tired of the press literally not doing its job?

Do members of my liberal/left-leaning family really want to live in a country in which the press covers for their "guy" in office rather than holding his feet to the fire? I desperately fear that they do, for the "greater good."

Today's LAT lead editorial was called "Romney's Opportunism," and they blasted Mr. Romney for criticizing Obama's response to the attacks, calling it an "outrageous exercise in opportunism." They conclude thusly: "In mixing sympathy with specious attacks and self-promotion, Romney has diminished himself."

Not surprisingly, I disagree. In fact, I'd say it's the Times that has diminished itself, having lost all credibility and objectivity.

Anyway, so here's my Letter to the Editor:

Re. “Romney’s Opportunism” (9/13/12):

In your editorial, you accuse Mitt Romney of cynically playing politics with these horrific attacks at the Libyan and Egyptian embassies. 

This is a complete red herring. 

According to your own front-page story, these attacks, which occurred on the anniversary of 9/11, appeared to be “planned and complex,” yet apparently no Marines were stationed at these embassies to provide security. 

Libya and Egypt are still volatile hotbeds of anti-American sentiment, and their governments are anything but stable. 

President Obama was indeed belated in his response to the Egyptian embassy’s statement about hurting Muslims’ feelings. 

Secretary of State Clinton seems mystified that anyone would attack America.

Today, there was an attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen, and there’s more unrest in Egypt. 

And Mitt Romney’s the story? 

Instead of focusing on Mitt Romney, who as a presidential candidate has every right to weigh in on this debacle, the question you should be asking is: Who’s in charge of this circus? This attempt to divert attention away from the incompetence of the Obama administration by focusing on Romney fools no one but fools. 

It’s not Romney who’s playing politics but the Los Angeles Times.

Update (9/17): My letter to the editor wasn't published, but an even better letter was in yesterday's paper. Mary Bono Mack (Republican representative from Palm Springs), wrote the following:

The editorial is off the mark. The Middle East has undergone a historic shift. How the United States conducts its foreign policy there is always important and often decisive. 

The direction that the president has steered the State Department ship counts. But rather than raising valid questions about the Obama administration's handling of a monumental international crisis, rather than exploring the root causes of why American embassies are under assault, your editorial lambasts Mitt Romney for failing to raise his hand before he spoke. 

 The steady foreign policy constant over the last half a century is that American leadership matters. Romney provided leadership in the moment, and the Obama administration did not. 

As chaos erupts in the Middle East, your readers deserve a substantive debate on the implications of two competing visions of America's foreign policy.

I sent Ms. Mack a personal email, thanking her for her letter. 

On another note, the notion that the mainstream media focused more on Romney's comment and less on Obama's foreign policy, here's an interesting analysis from the Media Research Center: 

The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) Wednesday evening newscasts devoted more than 9 minutes (9 minutes, 28 seconds) to the flap over Mitt Romney's statement criticizing the administration's handling of the Libyan crisis but spent just 25 seconds on questions regarding Barack Obama's Middle East policy, a greater than 20-to-1 disparity. 

No media bias?

You can read their entire report here, along with transcripts.