Benghazi
- Thread starter John A.
- Start date
The "transparent" Obama administration held an off the record Benghazi debriefing with reporters. I'm sure it was made clear to all how they will be reporting this.
The White House found itself with another press corps controversy on its hands on Friday, after it emerged that it held a secret briefing about the Benghazi attacks with a select group of White House reporters.
Spokesperson Jay Carney was initially supposed to hold a briefing at 12:30 PM on Friday. However, ABC's Jon Karl threw a wrench in that plan when he reported that the State Department had been involved in lengthy revisions of CIA talking points about the attacks.
All of a sudden, the press briefing was pushed back to 1:45 PM. Then, Politico reported that the White House had held a secret briefing about the Benghazi developments with reporters. The site reported that, while the contents of the briefing were on "deep background," meaning that they could be used as background information in reporting, the existence of the meeting itself was off the record.
However, not all reporters were invited to the briefing. White House journalists have complained many times in the past about their level of access to administration officials.
The White House found itself with another press corps controversy on its hands on Friday, after it emerged that it held a secret briefing about the Benghazi attacks with a select group of White House reporters.
Spokesperson Jay Carney was initially supposed to hold a briefing at 12:30 PM on Friday. However, ABC's Jon Karl threw a wrench in that plan when he reported that the State Department had been involved in lengthy revisions of CIA talking points about the attacks.
All of a sudden, the press briefing was pushed back to 1:45 PM. Then, Politico reported that the White House had held a secret briefing about the Benghazi developments with reporters. The site reported that, while the contents of the briefing were on "deep background," meaning that they could be used as background information in reporting, the existence of the meeting itself was off the record.
However, not all reporters were invited to the briefing. White House journalists have complained many times in the past about their level of access to administration officials.
I heard a political commentator suggest how this will play out. He said that calls for/approvals for military help, terrorist attacks etc. would definitely have had the attention of both Hillary and Obama. If they continue to play the "no knowledge" card they will look worse and worse as more comes out. Speaking of more coming out, he suggested that normally this kind of thing would be dumped on the lap of the ex Secretary of State to cover the ass of a sitting president. The problem here is that she wants to run for President and can't afford to have it dumped on her. Both Hillary and Barack have thus far followed the game plan of denial etc. but he suggested as more comes out each of them will be leaking information to blame the other. It seems plausible and I would not mind seeing them destroy each other. Time will tell.
It sounds like they have given the reporters the new talking points to spoon feed to the sheeple while not letting them quote the source.
Politico now reports that the meeting has been characterized as “deep background.” The existence of the meeting itself is considered “off-the-record.” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “Deep background means that the info presented by the briefers can be used in reporting but the briefers can’t be quoted.” So expect a fair number of “White House sources” to appear in reportage for the next few days.
UPDATE IV: Jay Carney began his on-the-record press briefing by announcing that 14 news organizations were invited to the closed door briefing, but that it was not a substitute for the on-the-record briefing. He then announced that it was “erroneous” to describe the briefing as “off-the-record,” and instead suggested it was “deep background.”
Politico now reports that the meeting has been characterized as “deep background.” The existence of the meeting itself is considered “off-the-record.” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “Deep background means that the info presented by the briefers can be used in reporting but the briefers can’t be quoted.” So expect a fair number of “White House sources” to appear in reportage for the next few days.
UPDATE IV: Jay Carney began his on-the-record press briefing by announcing that 14 news organizations were invited to the closed door briefing, but that it was not a substitute for the on-the-record briefing. He then announced that it was “erroneous” to describe the briefing as “off-the-record,” and instead suggested it was “deep background.”
The analyst I heard thought it would take 6-12 months to get it all out. Don't forget that Obama has mid term elections to worry about and had hopes on retaking Congress.
Deep background ????
What is that? Like Deep Throat and watergate?
FWIW, I looked up the definition of that and this is what it said.
Sounds like someone is spoon feeding a lot of propaganda to me. And if they truly did divulge "confidential/secret" information to anyone that does not have clearance to know about it, then they broke the law in doing so.
That only leaves me to believe that they are in fact trying to cover things up to suit themselves and write it the way they want it to read.
What is that? Like Deep Throat and watergate?
FWIW, I looked up the definition of that and this is what it said.
Sounds like someone is spoon feeding a lot of propaganda to me. And if they truly did divulge "confidential/secret" information to anyone that does not have clearance to know about it, then they broke the law in doing so.
That only leaves me to believe that they are in fact trying to cover things up to suit themselves and write it the way they want it to read.
Not so much anymore. Anything that can be put to print is, regardless of whether it has any truth to it or not...look at Sandy Hook and Boston. Anything, everything was reported with absolutely no verification. As sick as this sounds it would be interesting to be at a location and grab the first reporter just to feed them a line of BS and see how far it goes...
carbinemike said:
John A. said:
I think I buy the definition of "deep background" that John posted over the one that I copied off of Politico. With this administration, I'm sure the reporters were all reigned in.
I also came across this.:
"CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the National Security Council on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi."
(with sarcasm) JohnA, are you sure that link is accurate? The President has labeled Benghazi a phony scandal.
“With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing, and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” Barack Obama
I'm glad this one seems to be coming back up as it's just as bad or worse as all of the other b.s. scandals of this administration.
“With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing, and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” Barack Obama
I'm glad this one seems to be coming back up as it's just as bad or worse as all of the other b.s. scandals of this administration.
Obama is a turd...and that's all I have to say about that...