Since the 60 Minutes interview with faux-Benghazi witness Dylan Davies imploded earlier this month, Media Matters has inundated their readers with continually over-hyped articles and opinion pieces hammering the network for their irresponsible journalism. Since November 1st, posts on their Facebook page lambasting the interview now total a whopping 46, while on the actual website, their search engine yields a total of 64 articles posted from November 1st at sometimes two or even three a day.
All the top-dogs from Dan Rather to Chris Hayes to Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have been called in for comment. Former 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes, the lady fired in 2004 for airing a story criticizing former President Bush's military service based on falsified documents, stated 60 Minutes reported on Benghazi simply to appease an "obsessed right-wing audience".
Taking his cues from Oliver Stone's conspiratorial cookbook, columnist Eric Bohlert wrote a lengthy segment titled, "What Is CBS Hiding? Who Is CBS Protecting at 60 Minutes?", calling for an investigation into CBS, and suggesting the public must know if they colluded with Republican sources, if Lara Logan withheld evidence to pursue an ideological agenda, if Lara Logan personally rebuked her executives doubts on Davies' credibility, how high does it goes up, and who was involved, etc. In an article for The American Prospect, columnist Paul Waldman even farcically suggested Lara Logan won't be fired because "CBS doesn't fear liberals the way it fears conservatives."
In the month of November alone, the Obama administration has suffered a litany of political turmoil for Media Matters to spin, from the President's fledgling approval rating to the disastrous roll-out of Obamacare, which begs the question, why so much noise and attention towards one botched news report that was immediately corrected and apologized for?
Does Hillary Clinton 2016 ring a bell?
As previously reported by editors Ben Shapiro and Jeremy Boreing, Media Matters have made it their incessant goal to discredit, demoralize, and ultimately bankrupt critics of Hillary Clinton's role in the Benghazi attack by poking holes in her opponents arguments, then exploiting them to their full dramatic effect.
64 articles and counting would not be dedicated to such an incident if Media Matters didn't believe that doing so would silence, or at the very least, belittle any and all references made to Benghazi in the 2016 election.
No matter how much David Brock and Media Matters perform their illusionist magic act, they cannot escape, nor do they attempt to explain, the glaring reality that the Benghazi compound had inappropriately low security for such a tumultuous region, the state department ignored blatant warnings of a potential attack, and the Obama administration along with Hillary Clinton blamed the entire debacle on a Youtube video during the 2012 election campaign despite clear evidence to the contrary.
No amount of spin from Media Matters and MSNBC will change that.