Josh Glick Media Coverage of Benghazi Attack 10 December, 2012
Comm 317: Mass Media Law and Ethics Professor Duvall
Section I Today’s society is flooded with different outlets to receive up to date news and
media information. From social networks, 24 hour news coverage, to apps and mobile
downloads to receive information on current issues. With all these different forms of
information available to the public, society relies on being informed by the media to what is happening around the world and here at home. The truth remains though, that as media
becomes more involved, bias reporting and swayed networks are controlling information revealed to the public in order to influence political views. This type of reporting is
referred to as framing, which is how news media can shape the mass opinion. News
organizations can present news as a manufactured product and pander to their specific audiences. News coverage is being portrayed to favor either the left or right sides of
Congress. Information is being withheld, or dulled down to cover up matters that would
view political figures in a negative light. Celebrities and important media figures have gone to social networking to spread their opinions in hope their fans will follow the same path
they have. With all these under handed games the media can play it leads the public to wonder where the truth lies.
As reporters, it is their responsibility to seek the truth and provide impartial
accounts of events. One of the main duties of reporters is to report objectively rather than
subjectively. This would be the ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices, where subjective reporting allows
interpretation based on personal opinions or feelings rather than evidence and facts.
Journalists are to report both sides of the issues and remain unbiased to the matters at
hand. Part of the Preamble in the Society of Professional Journalism states just that. “The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and
comprehensive account of events and issues.” However, today’s media has become so
obvious in its political views and support, that it’s hardly a secret where most networks
and journalists lie in terms of Republican or Democrat. CBS News and CNN, for example, are both well known for being more left to center. On the other side, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal have been notably more Republican based. Both sides are equally
guilty for this offense, but the problem is where the public can turn to receive accurate unbiased information to fully understand the issues at hand.
The latest election between Obama and Romney has shown more media bias than
ever before. In the previous year’s Obama has racked up an impressive amount of media
support through networks and high profile celebrities. He gained voters simply by who he
knew. Celebrities, talk shows, and all types of other public figures gave him the backing he needed, camera time to push his views, and support in the polls. Romney’s campaign had
to come into the election looking for supporter’s right out of the gate. With this entire
media backing for Obama, information and news coverage was obviously released in a gentle light for Obama, and focused more on seeking a negative view of Romney. The
power of the media and the way the news is reported has such an impact on the voting public; it can all but predetermine a victory for whatever party the media chooses to supports.
Bias in news coverage comes in all different fashions. There are a number of
effective ways the media controls political slants and they range from the execution of
information, to the omission of information all together. Media bias knows exactly how to deliver news to people to engage their concern, or prevent their interest. The trick is
seeing past these biases and knowing all the issues before relying on certain media links to report their version of the issues. Knowing the different ways bias new coverage is
projected opens society to look for loop holes and unanswered questions that have been purposely left out.
When journalists are reporting the news they are supposed to supply the viewers
with honest information and then explain and educate both sides of the issue equally.
However, one form of bias in news coverage, challenges that to sway viewers to a certain
side of the topic. Bias by commission is when reporters only present one side of the facts
or is not equally relay the information from both parties. This is achieved by presenting
the viewers with an issues then having an “expert” or reliable authority of the issue further explain one side of what is happening, without offering any other opinion to the matter. People watching are more inclined to believe this authority without someone to dispute
him. They build evidence on one side of the facts to support the side they are backing. Bias
by commission is very common and the common viewer rarely challenges the reporter’s methods, therefore believing this is the only truth. By not equally informing people of
facts from both parties, it starts to build an opinion of political issues that may not be the whole story.
Another form of bias in new coverage is called bias of omission. This is when the
news chooses to leave out or ignore facts. It could also be referred to as peg journalism, where the news “peg” is the justification for the story. Using peg journalism can allow reporters more freedom or control over how stories are portrayed to the public. The
Bengazi cover up is an example of bias of omission among other things. When information
shows a party in negative light, the news that supports this party simply tries to keep it out
of the news in general, or tries to leave out certain facts that are evident in the issues. Even today as the Bengazi attack is being questioned, news coverage try to omit this story and
bring to light other issues as precedence. The affair with the CIA chief David Petraeous, or
the royal family having a baby, all take light over this important issue. This is a type of
omission, by simply leaving the Bengazi issue out of the news report, viewers do not push
the importance of what happened. Omitting facts can help a political issue and therefore
news coverage may focus on certain aspects of a topic to dull down other important facts
that may hurt the partisan party. Bias by omission is very serious because viewers are
being kept from what is happening in the world, and also about things that could directly
affect them. It is a scary reality that news coverage will go as far as covering up
information because of its left or right wing nature. In order to determine if this is
happening, the viewing publics have to be on top of the issues even if they do not hold a lot
of media outlook. Most people rely on the news to inform them on all issues foreign and domestic and so expecting them to look outwards for information is difficult to achieve.
Without knowing what is really happening, we as the viewing public are left completely out in the cold.
Very common and simple ways that news coverage can show bias in different
matters is by story selection. This is simply by bringing light to certain issues of one party
and not another party. By highlighting certain stories it can show viewers the interests of a
political candidate, what they have done to help a cause, or their views on different subject matters. By highlighting one political side but not the other, viewers have a better
understanding of a certain party and may be confused where the other candidate lies.
When the news selects certain stories it also makes the viewer feel closer with a candidate or issue. They feel as though they are more knowledgeable about that side of an issue so they lean in that direction. If they knew both sides of the matter, they risk losing that
viewers support. Story selection works with bias of commission is that both candidates are not equally represented.
News coverage can be clean in presenting all the information but can do it in a way
to try and minimize or embellish its importance. This type or reporting is referred to as
sensationalism. Simple placement of an article or the time period a subject is reported on can also be media bias. By placing certain matters on the front page and burying other
issues way in the back of the paper, the news coverage gives more focus to the issues they
want to be brought to light. Having a political matter in the headlines and bring on special guest to report on it tells the audience that this is important. Later in the show, however,
the opposing issues a lightly brushes on for 1 or 2 minutes and then moved passed.
Viewers will likely remember this report, if they even bother to watch it. By the reporters acting uninterested in certain issues, viewers become uninterested. The placement of a
story seems like a small concern, but it can have a powerful outcome on swaying the
issues. It is something people seldom think about when flipping through the newspaper, or watching a morning news report, but that is what the media wants.
One last way to determine media bias is the approach in which the story is spun.
Like in the placement of matters, the way an issue is approached has a lasting effect of how
the viewer will perceive it. When a story is seen as urgent or the reporters have a lot of comment or feedback, it sticks out to the person watching. The reporter can grasp the
audiences’ emotions and play on personal connections to get the people watching to feel the same way. On the other side, the reported can seem detached and unrelated to a
report they are giving and offer no feedback or reflection, this will appear unimportant and monotonous. The way a story is approached has a big pull on a viewer and can defer them to one side of an issue or another.
Determining the different ways in which or media covers the news is a vast
understanding of how the political game is played. Bias and swayed reporting is evident in
almost all news forms and now leave the public to wonder if what they are being told is the truth. Very relevant matters to our world are being altered, falsified, and covered up. The
media was supposed to be a way of bettering our knowledge and awareness, when in fact it
is being toyed with and misconceived. Currently we are being lead through an example of bias in news coverage with the Bengazi cover up and the media has aided in hiding this story from the public.
Section II
On September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya a group of armed men attacked the
United States mission killing the United States Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and
three other members of his diplomatic mission. The attack, a foreign affairs tragedy that
has not happened in over twenty years, came at the wrong time for President Barack
Obama and his administration. With the 2012 presidential election only two months off,
this attack could seriously hinder Obama’s hopes for re-election.
President Obama’s main claim was that the attack was provoked by a YouTube
video, produced by what Obama referred to as a “shady character.” He said the person who posted the video lives “here,” meaning in the United States and directed the video towards Mohammed and Islam. He believed the mockery of the Prophet Muhammad caused great
offense in much of the Muslim world which led to extremists and terrorists to use the video as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies.
The day following the attacks Libyans held demonstrations in both Benghazi and
Tripoli condemning the violence, making signs, and online twitter posts apologizing to
Americans for the terrorist actions. Surveys taken in March and April show that 54 percent
of Libyans support and approve the leadership of the United States. President Obama
emphasized how Libyans “helped our diplomats to safety.” However, it has been greatly questioned how much of a fight, if any, the Libyans guards put up. He also stated that
justice will be done for this “terrible act” and “outrageous attack” and that freedom is only
sustained because people are willing to fight for it and lay down their lives for it if need be.
He has since ordered security to be increased at all facilities world-wide, including a 50 member Marine team to Libya.
This incidence and the coverage or lack thereof that has followed, has created a
media war in the United States. ABC news has undergone many accusations of mostly
ignoring or not reporting on what has taken place in Benghazi, and the facts behind the
attack. They have been accused by the media research center that the Obama White House knew the attack was a direct terrorist connection within hours, rather than the
administration’s claims that it may have possibly been a “spontaneous uprising.” World News and Good Morning America chose to take the main focus of their program off the Benghazi attacks, and aimed for things such as yawning dogs, a woman who only eats
three types of foods, and Oprah Winfrey. World News allotted a mere twenty seconds of
the e-mails showing that the strike on Benghazi was actually a pre-planned attack. Days
later Media Research President, Brent Bozell stated, “The questions are simple: what did
President Obama know? And when did he know it? These emails prove that either Obama knew it was a terrorist attack and lied about it for weeks, or his administration is
historically incompetent. Either way, it’s major news and demands more than mere
seconds of total coverage from one of the three major broadcast networks.”
Ten days following the attack, Libyans protested against armed militia in their
country and later the government would order all militia to turn in weapons and also
disband or come under the control of the government which includes the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia who played a role in the attack. The Las Vegas Review-Journal later
reported that President Obama attended a celebrity fund-raising event the day following
the attack, and also that the white house accused Mitt Romney of speaking to quickly and strongly on the lack of security in Benghazi, and that this was another one of his “gaffes.”
The Review-Journal also stated that, “Mitt Romney is a moral, capable, and responsible
man,” as well as stating, “This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and
incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity.”
President Obama’s white house administration, with help from the media, managed
to stretch the story on the attacks in Libya out for almost two months. The Accountability
Review Board established by the state department began investigating the case soon after the attacks, but all through closed hearings, with little or no detailed information being leaked. However, it is known that the CIA arrived 25 minutes after the attack, but they were stationed only one mile away. Fox News also reported that in August less than a
month before the attack, diplomatic post in Benghazi held meetings due to local Al Qaeda training camps and still security at the posts was decreased leaving little man power for
defense. They also called out the New York Times during an on-air report for not having
front page coverage of the attacks the three days following them. During the same report
they directly accused the Obama administration of “lying” and “cheating” in order to win re-election.
ABC news then had a very opinionated follow-up on their online blogging section of
the news which included statements such as, “Republicans operatives are fanning flames and creating suspicions where there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, trafficking in false
rumors and idle speculation.� They also attempted to interview or ask President Obama when he would begin to provide answers to the numerous questions building up about
exactly what went wrong in Benghazi after his helicopter landed at the white house. They reported that they received “no comment,� but rather a smile and a wave. However, they
did manage to compare this smile and wave to that of former President Ronald Reagan who is considered to be one of the most successful and popular United States presidents.
The Wall Street Journal reported on November 2nd that during the summer, the Red
Cross and the U.K. closed offices in Benghazi due to attempted terrorist acts and also
assassinations. It was also declared that a bomb went off outside the United States mission
on June 6th, but due to no injuries or fatalities taking place the first account of this was not made public for nearly two months later by the CIA. Obama was also asked if the
Americans who asked for help in Benghazi were turned down by that chain of command.
He had no comment for this question as well.
A study at The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University was
conducted which broke down the five major themes in the public and the different opinions or outlooks the public took on the attacks. The first two categories were spontaneous
attacks vs. planned attacks. This took on the theory that the spontaneous attacks were the democrats or people supporting Obama, and the planned attacks were the Republicans.
Stories and coverage depicted the spontaneous attacks 17 percent of the time, to the
planned attacks mere 4 percent of the time. Thus, meaning Democrat belief was reported
at an astounding 4:1 ratio over the Republican belief.
Section III Technology continues to advance, and news media outlets have taken advantage of
the technology at hand, which has led to news reporting becoming a 24 hour, non-stop job.
With all of these outlets being easily accessible by the public it should be easy to be
constantly informed and updated on major news stories and breaking news such as the attacks on the United States embassies in Benghazi. However, the major news
organizations are able to use a variety of techniques to form the opinions of their viewers, or even are almost able to brain-wash them giving just enough information or certain information in order for their audience to take the side of their organization.
The idea of a professional journalist is to be objective in ones reporting covering all
aspects and sides of a story, and relay that message in an unbiased fashion to the public.
One way to help understand and communicate this would be through the use of the potter
box. This box takes into account facts first, secondly one’s values, thirdly one’s principles, and lastly where the reporter’s loyalties lie within all of these. It seems as if every news organization in the country chose loyalty to their political beliefs and to the values and beliefs of their organization over facts and their loyalty to the people.
The Benghazi coverage was handled in two completely different fashions by the
major news organizations and virtually started an on air and print war between the
differing opinions and what the focus of this coverage should be. ABC chose to focus more
on the entertainment and viewership rather than breaking news coverage. The majority of their news was on things such as Oprah and the eating habits of people, leaving only 20
seconds in their show for information regarding the attacks in Libya, thus, choosing ratings
over their duty to keep the public well-informed. Along with ABC, the New York Times
chose to hide coverage within the newspaper in order to draw less attention to the Obama administration’s foreign affairs.
On the other side of this news “political” debate, The Las Vegas Review-Journal
greatly criticized the Obama administration as a whole, and complemented Romney as
being moral, capable, and responsible. It also inserted a response from the Obama
administration regarding Romney’s comments stating he spoke to strongly and quickly
about the attacks, and went on to say that maybe the Obama administration should have
acted more strongly and quickly on our country’s foreign affairs and lives would have been saved.
It seems after heeding much criticism, news organizations which favor the left side,
began more investigation on what took place in Libya and reported multiple occasions of
attempting to ask and receive more information from President Obama himself. All of these
so called attempts ended with “no comment” from the president or simply just a smile and a wave. Yet these organizations continued on complementing the president on his Reagan like ways to handle people and the media in order to take the focus off of the fact that
Obama continually avoids giving hard-core factual information for the case. All that is
known is that investigations are taking place to determine whether the attacks were
organized Al Qaeda or a spontaneous uprising due to a YouTube video, and the information regarding this is kept in closed hearings. These cases and hearings were able to last
throughout the 2012 Presidential Election, and with President Obama being re-elected all the information regarding the attacks has still yet to have been released and the story is
beginning to die down. According to Fox News this will be our nation’s biggest cover-up
story and will not be forgotten.
Having the right to free speech and freedom of the press has caused an uproar in
today’s politics and news media. News organizations have reported virtually every topic
regarding the Benghazi case, and have even gone back and forth arguing about false claims
or misinterpreting information. Thomas E. Ricks was interviewed on Fox News and while
being interviewed made the claim that simply because of “this network� what took place in Benghazi was over hyped. He claimed that it was a small fire-fight and it is impossible to
determine how they are started sometimes.
The main focus of all of this coverage, however, has been directed and conceived in
a negative fashion. The people of our nation and those who follow media coverage in other nations need to realize and understand having all of these different types of news media
organizations, especially who strongly disagree on morals, ethics, and every issue or news topics possible benefits everyone. They are constantly being bombarded with new facts
and greatly differing opinions, and are able to conceive their own opinions based on what
they have read, seen, heard, or learned. If our nation had one major news organization, or
even just a select few, it would constantly be the same facts and opinions, and the people of our nation would have no choice or differing outlet at an attempt to better understand what is taking place in the world around us.
Works Cited
Anderson, Jennifer. “The Impact of Graphic Television News Coverage on Opinions of War.” Conference Papers – Midwestern Political Science Association (2008): 1. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Bozell, Brent. "ABC Refusing to Cover Obama Benghazi Lie." Media Research Center. Media Research Center, 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 8 Dec. 2012.
Cecil, Kelly, and Mark Sullivan. "Media War Coverage and Pentage Policy." N.p., 11 Apr. 1989. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Davis, Kathy. “Study: media framed Benghazi in Obama’s terms.” The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University 2 November 2012.
Patterson, Phillip and Wilkins, Lee. Media Ethics: Issues and Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print.
Smith, Glen R. "Politicians And The News Media: How Elite Attacks Influence Perceptions Of Media Bias." International Journal of Press/Politics 15.3 (2010): 319-343. Academic Search Premier. Fri. 8 Dec. 2012.