NYT Officially a National Joke: Paper Still Wondering if YouTube Video Caused Benghazi Attack; Still Wants To Wait for "Full Investigation" Before Concluding It Was a Pre-Planned Terrorist Attack

Here's a rant.

MSNBC is so relentlessly and stupidly partisan that liberals in other media feel they need to note that MSNBC is a joke -- to protect their own credibility. If they try to claim MSNBC is a real news organization, that raises questions about themselves-- if MSNBC seems like a genuine news organization to them, then their idea of a real news organization is a partisan Obama-loving Rainbow Party, isn't it?

So they have to distance themselves. It's a bit of a lie, of course. They actually like MSNBC and kind of wish they could take off the shackles and go Full Maddow.

But you never go Full Maddow. The public would cringe. You can only go partial Maddow, like Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump. You must present a dishonest, softened version of Mental Maddowization.

But they still insist the New York Times "The Greatest Newspaper in the World."

It's nothing like MSNBC, after all.

Despite... Well, just like MSNBC, the New York Times almost entirely avoids the topic of Benghazi. Full on embargo on MSNBC, very light, begrudging inside-pages coverage in the New York Times. Every once in a while.

FoxNews hosts Bret Baier and especially Greta Van Susstern have taken to displaying the front page of the NYT on days in which major Libya news breaks, and every real newspaper leads with it. But the New York Times? Libya is as absent from its cover as specifics are absent from Obama's so-called plan to cut $3 trillion from the budget.

So what is the difference between MSNBC and the NYT, apart from one being printed?

Today, of course, they do have a piece on Libya.

A piece which wonders if that YouTube video inspired the pre-planned terrorist attack on the consulate, and being greatly chagrined that "politics" is taking all the "nuance" out of our discussion of the topic.

After all, maybe that video did have something to do with it.

You don't know. It's possible. And other such stuttering Whoopi Goldbergisms. (Whoopi Goldberg becomes a strident fan of doubt and epistemological indeterminacy whenever there's news that hurts Obama. You don't know. No one can know. Oddly enough her epistemological cautiousness evaporates when there's something she wants to say about Republicans.)

So, the NYT ponders: Why are we rushing to judgment before an election? Why don't we just let this breathe a spell, until after Obama is safely elected? Then we can get to the bottom of these difficult, "confusing" (their word) questions without all the heat and furor of politics intruding.

Safe link to Hot Air, by the way.

And from Sunday, Laura Ingraham made me happy when she called out an MSNBC reporter, I mean a NYT reporter, to his face.

posted by Ace at 02:41 PM

| Access Comments