NY Times: What difference at this point does Benghazi make? (Update – Confirmation Bias?)

NY Times: What difference at this point does Benghazi make? (Update – Confirmation Bias?)

The NY Times published a lengthy account of the Benghazi attack that is being hyped as exonerating the Obama administration (and of course, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton), but in fact the report does nothing of the sort.

The main thrust of the spin is that it was the video after all, a claim long since abandoned by almost everyone. There never was a doubt that the video inspired a generalize hostility, but that is a far cry from saying that the actual attackers who executed by contemporaneous internal administration accounts were motivated by the video.

The reporting does not support that the video was what motivated the “several dozen” armed attackers, even if it created a general atmosphere of hostility.

.@NYTimes dosen't show that the "few dozen" armed local al-Q fighters who attacked consulate were motivated by video

— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) December 29, 2013

.@NYTimes: "The attack began with just a few dozen fighters" > Just? Dozens of local al-Q just show up?

— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) December 29, 2013

The NYT also plays a linguistic slight of hand, distinguishing between international al-Qaeda (NYT says no connection) and local al-Qaeda wannabees to try to prove that this was not an “al-Qaeda” attack. But local, independently operation al-Qaeda groups have been the motus operandi for years.

That there was no phone call from Pakistan to the local group in Benghazi does not mean that this was not a planned Islamic extremist attack and instead some spontaneous reaction to a video:

.@NYTimes runs cover for admin by playing word games of international al-Q versus local al-Q

— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) December 29, 2013

@LegInsurrection @nytimes Like the "improvised" mortar attack carried out with deadly effectiveness because targets were plotted in advance.

— Charles Hoskinson (@cehoskinson) December 29, 2013

This is how an otherwise interesting series of interviews gets spun but is not supported by the actual details of the reporting.

https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/417361985190100992

For a more detailed analysis, for which I don’t have time, see these posts:

• Paul Mirengoff, The New York Times’ revisionist account of Benghazi
• Ed Morrissey, NY Times: Hey, that YouTube video did have something to do with Benghazi attack after all
• Jeff Dunetz, New York Times’ Benghazi Fairy Tale Written For Hillary 2016?
• (added) Stephen Hayes, Times Ignores Evidence of Al Qaeda Link to Benghazi – Contradicts previous reporting from the New York Times.

The wagons to defend the NY Times from criticism are officially being circled — by other media:

Every criticism of @ddknyt story should start with 'I didn't have the balls to go to Benghazi or interview militia leaders myself, but…'

— Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) December 29, 2013

.@GlennThrush @RosieGray @ddknyt Article substance doesn't match hype or conclusions, that's entirely fair critique

— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) December 29, 2013

"Don't question the New York Times reporter unless you've been there yourself" is how we got Walter Duranty. No thank you.

— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) December 29, 2013

Update: Is this a case of confirmation bias?

https://twitter.com/kirstenpowers10/status/417371406238613504
https://twitter.com/kirstenpowers10/status/417371823920001024
https://twitter.com/kirstenpowers10/status/417372116464312320

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.