Once upon a time, U.S. News And World Report used to have a reputation for actual news reporting.

I realized yesterday as I, and other conservatives, engaged in a Twitter discussion with its managing editor, Robert Schlesinger, how long gone that reputation was.

I could not remember the last time I had read or even seen anything about the magazine, and the conversation with Mr. Schlesinger made me understand why.

Mr. Schlesinger began with the opening salvo that “there was no scandal over Benghazi”. That would be no shame, perhaps, in having that opinion.

But then he revealed that he had absolutely no idea of any of the facts concerning Benghazi:

Check that-he believes the scandal is about the talking points and that somehow the “GOP” edited them. He’s not kidding.

Mr. Schlesinger is referencing an effort by Democrats to create a “counter-scandal” story, that supposedly GOP operatives leaked “forged” White House emails to make the White House look bad. The supposedly “forged” emails referenced concerns that emails leaked to news organizations included a summary of an email not inconsistent with the original emails. Wow, big scandal. Of course, four people dying because of the administration’s failures and the ensuing cover-up is not a scandal, but a summary of an email is. This “scandal” has already earned more time on some liberal media outlets than the whole Benghazi story in general.

Yet, even if you thought this somehow was a scandal, most would still understand that the emails are different from the Benghazi “talking points”. Not Mr. Schlesinger, however, revealing how little of the facts of the case he actually knows or understands.

Seeking to cast further doubt on the Benghazi scandal he cites the NY Times. But cites to their article about the wrong scandal.

He thereafter notes that the true scandal is the lack of funding for security, citing as his source his own, clearly unresearched article:

The people in charge of security at Benghazi, most notably, Charlene Lamb, testified before Congress noting that the security issues did not stem from lack of budget. Mr. Schlesinger takes no notice of this, either in his tweets or in his less-than-dispositive article. This is right out of the Media Matters playbook and is a common response from the left on Benghazi, despite its untruth.

Indeed, if State had had a budgetary concern, they still determine where their money can go. They sent Marines to the Caribbean and Paris, but not as security to Benghazi. They spent money subsidizing Chevy Volts, rather than toughening security. Finally, if Benghazi were not safe, then pull our people out. It’s really that simple.

He even appears to claim that information about the video came from the CIA, which is patently false.

After a time, he seemed to concede that the “talking points’ had been changed but blamed it on a “sprawling bureaucracy”.

Finally, realizing he was sort of stuck on the losing side of the argument with conservatives armed with facts, Mr. Schlesinger opted out of the conversation with the following tweet:

One may have one’s own opinion in an opinion piece, but said opinion cannot run counter to the facts already clearly adduced. Otherwise it is little more than propaganda.

Tweet
Share
0 Shares