60 Minutes Benghazi Apology a Win for Hillary?

"...it will make journalists more wary of covering the story, and especially of covering Clinton."

Last week, Media Matters chairman David Brock called out 60 Minutes for its reliance on a faulty witness in its Oct. 27 Benghazi story. Armed with corroborating reports from the Washington Post and Fox News, Brock ultimately won the fight, leading a humiliated CBS to formally retract that part of their report.

Brock’s concerns about the unreliable witness, Dylan Davies, were well-founded. A Fox News correspondent claimed that Davies had offered interviews for financial compensation and The Washington Post reported that Davies had provided information to them previously which directly conflicted with his CBS testimony.  

So in some ways, the win for Brock was a win for truthful reporting. But as Breitbart’s Joel B. Pollak points out, there’s another angle to 60 Minutes’ embarrassing admission. Brock’s win will likely serve as a deterrent to future hard-hitting pieces on the central political player in the Benghazi scandal: Hillary Clinton.

Still, Media Matters has scored a win with its attack on CBS News--and rightly so. That has not changed the basic facts of the Benghazi story: Obama and Clinton failed to protect U.S. diplomats, then lied to the public about a YouTube video. But it will make journalists more wary of covering the story, and especially of covering Clinton. They will realize there is no room for error. 

Issues

People

Organizations