By Geoffrey Dickens | September 9, 2013
A similar pattern has emerged in 2013. As new information about the administration’s actions before and after the attacks have been revealed through congressional testimony, whistleblowers, and eyewitnesses, the Big Three have responded by censoring, breezing past or spinning politically damaging bombshells. (full special report after the jump)
From praising Hillary Clinton’s January testimony on Benghazi as a “fiery” “valedictory” to ignoring accusations of witness intimidation, the networks have, for the most part, operated as an arm of the White House PR machine. The only events that drew truly critical coverage were Gregory Hicks’ compelling testimony of the events of that tragic day and the release of e-mails that proved the administration had engaged in scrubbing CIA talking points. However these stories came in the midst of the intense but relatively brief period in May that the networks were forced to cover the myriad of scandals (IRS, AP, NSA) breaking all at once.