August 05, 2013

CNN Reporters Worried They'll Lose WH Access if They Report on Phony Benghazi Scandal

Wonder why CNN hasn't followed up on its revelations last week that 30 CIA agents were on the ground in Benghazi? Why none of them have been contacted about the incident? And why none of the prime suspects have been interviewed by the FBI either?

Okay, strike that last part. As I said before, the FBI just aint going to be interviewing known al Qaeda sympathizers in a country with little or no central government.

But what about the rest? Why no follow up? Wonder no more:

Some CNN reporters are reportedly fearful now that their access to the White House will be hampered following their probing into a story that members of the Obama administration would prefer remain uninvestigated.
I think it's more than this. It's not just that reporters don't want to lose access to powerful people when they say bad things about them, it's that they have a vested partisan interest when those powerful people are Democrats.

And it's only gotten worse under Obama since they have a vested interest in the success of the first black president.

Today I was listening to NPR while driving and they were interviewing David Epstein, an editor at Sports Illustrated, about his new book The Sports Gene. Most sports fans will know the controversy surrounding the book in that Epstein argues that there are small genetic differences which at the top end -- such as in professional sports -- lead to one genetic subtype doing better in a sport than others. Think Kenyans from a particular tribe (I forget which one) and long distance running (although, he also says it's not just genetics but also some other stuff -- like being poor and having nothing better to do).

If I understand his argument it isn't so much that black people are better at sports as much as it is that some people from certain tribal or ethnic subpopulations in Africa are better at certain sports because of very slight variation among populations such as the thigh to body ratio.

And the reason I bring this up is that during the interview, but not mention in NPR's write up on it, is that Epstein made a pretty amazing claim. He said that even scientists are so hyper sensitive about issues of race that some of them have admitted to sitting on data which shows genetic differences for fear of being called a 'racist'. He said that this was true even when the genetic differences had nothing to do with intelligence or other factors which could possibly be construed as racist.

If scientists are willing to sit on data for fear of being called a racist by their peers, I imagine that a similar fear of social stigma is something that most reporters -- who are part of a social circle far more overtly leftist and burdened by upper class white guilt than are scientists -- would be afraid to say bad things about President You-Know-Who.

Things that might make him look bad. Like, say, the first death of a US ambassador since Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Thanks to Space of AIDS for the h/t.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 04:17 PM | Comments |