I admit that liberal media bias is, most of the time, subtle. That is, your average consumer of news is not likely to even notice it. It is, for the most part, not even intentional, just sloppy craftsmanship. Or, at least, that is what I like to believe because the idea that the profession I have spent my life practicing is tainted is not a pleasant one.
Still, sometimes, the liberal bias is so blatant, that even the left has to blush.
I am, of course, speaking of CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley’s egregious lack of judgment in defending President Barack Obama during Tuesday night’s debate. It was even more egregious given that Obama was lying and Crowley was defending the lie.
To put it bluntly, and to paraphrase my liberal friends, Obama lied after four people died.
In case you missed it, Gov. Mitt Romney accused, rightly so, Obama of not admitting for two weeks that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was, in fact, a planned terrorist attack by a terrorist organization.
“It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror,” Romney said during the debate.
Then this exchange took place:
“He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror,” Crowley told Romney.
“Can you say that a little louder, Candy,” Obama asked.
“He did call it an act of terror,” Crowley said.
Obama also told Romney to “Get the transcript.”
Good idea, Mr. President. Let’s look at the transcript.
Shortly before 11 a.m. on Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden at the White House, Obama gave a five-minute speech before jetting off to Las Vegas to raise funds for his re-election campaign.
In the fourth paragraph of his brief comments, Obama said: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”
This is the narrative that Obama spewed for two weeks. That the attack on the U.S. consulate was not an attack on the United States and was certainly not a planned terrorist attack. Instead, Obama and his team insisted for two weeks that the attack stemmed from a spontaneous demonstration against a mysterious anti-Islamic film.
Near the end of his very brief remarks (after all, he can’t let the assassination of an American ambassador make him late for his campaign appearances) he began talking about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then he said: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
Clearly, he never called the attack in Libya “an act of terror.” At the very least, the remarks were ambiguous enough that Crowley should not have jumped to the president’s defense.
We should not be surprised, though. In a study of the last five town hall debates, the media moderators choose, by a 2-to-1 margin, questions that favor the liberal candidate.
And with this year’s election, the bias is barely hidden. In this last debate, and, for that matter in the first debate, Obama was given more time by the media moderators. Same holds true for Vice President Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate. Hard to believe that is just a coincidence.
The reason given by CNN is a lame attempt at covering up the bias.
According to an internal email, obtained by TMZ, Crowley allowed Obama more time to speak at the debate because “he speaks more slowly,” (which probably explains why it took 14 days to admit the attack in Libya was terrorism).
The email sent out by CNN’s Managing Editor Mark Whitaker began with him cheering, “Let’s start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable.”
Only in today’s journalism can you violate bedrock ethical canons and be cheered for it.