CNN Reporters Worried They'll Lose WH Access if They Report on Phony Benghazi Scandal

Wonder why CNN hasn't followed up on its revelations last week that 30 CIA agents were on the ground in Benghazi? Why none of them have been contacted about the incident? And why none of the prime suspects have been interviewed by the FBI either?

Okay, strike that last part. As I said before, the FBI just aint going to be interviewing known al Qaeda sympathizers in a country with little or no central government.

But what about the rest? Why no follow up? Wonder no more:

Some CNN reporters are reportedly fearful now that their access to the White House will be hampered following their probing into a story that members of the Obama administration would prefer remain uninvestigated.
I think it's more than this. It's not just that reporters don't want to lose access to powerful people when they say bad things about them, it's that they have a vested partisan interest when those powerful people are Democrats.

And it's only gotten worse under Obama since they have a vested interest in the success of the first black president.

Today I was listening to NPR while driving and they were interviewing David Epstein, an editor at Sports Illustrated, about his new book The Sports Gene. Most sports fans will know the controversy surrounding the book in that Epstein argues that there are small genetic differences which at the top end -- such as in professional sports -- lead to one genetic subtype doing better in a sport than others. Think Kenyans from a particular tribe (I forget which one) and long distance running (although, he also says it's not just genetics but also some other stuff -- like being poor and having nothing better to do).

If I understand his argument it isn't so much that black people are better at sports as much as it is that some people from certain tribal or ethnic subpopulations in Africa are better at certain sports because of very slight variation among populations such as the thigh to body ratio.

And the reason I bring this up is that during the interview, but not mention in NPR's write up on it, is that Epstein made a pretty amazing claim. He said that even scientists are so hyper sensitive about issues of race that some of them have admitted to sitting on data which shows genetic differences for fear of being called a 'racist'. He said that this was true even when the genetic differences had nothing to do with intelligence or other factors which could possibly be construed as racist.

If scientists are willing to sit on data for fear of being called a racist by their peers, I imagine that a similar fear of social stigma is something that most reporters -- who are part of a social circle far more overtly leftist and burdened by upper class white guilt than are scientists -- would be afraid to say bad things about President You-Know-Who.

Things that might make him look bad. Like, say, the first death of a US ambassador since Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Thanks to Space of AIDS for the h/t.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:17 PM

Comments

1 Why that's just fanTAStic! ("That's what they taught me in charm school to say instead of "bullish!t")

There is all kinds of data out there about the differences in various strains of humanity, such as, for example, the prevalence of Tay Sachs disease, various cancers, and sickle cell anemia.

And as for sticky topics such as relative intelligence, there's always "The Bell Curve," the book that proved that Harvard professors can't do basic statistics.

Maybe the real problem is that there are a lot of researchers trying to dig data out of experimental noise. They are "sitting" on the data because it's not significant.

Posted by: VALERIE at August 05, 2013 05:12 PM

2 Good doctor Shackleford: Common sense has been hidden under the fear of being called a racist. There are differences in people. Where they originated, climate, food, competition, need for protection from the cold all influences different people. People are mammals and are influenced by their surrounding as all other animals are. In fact, there are vast differences. The natives of Tierra del Fuego will never win long distance races with big bodies and short stubby limbs. A desert Arab isn't going to last long living with people in the polar regions where their blood leaves the limbs to protect their body cores. Nature has provided some Sub Saharan people with the ability to store fat in their buttocks. Big booties are liked by who? Races are different because of where they come from and environmental needs.
PC would like to hide this fact but it can't be intelligently disputed.

Sports? I believe sports shows more community interests than racial. Face it. Black folks look to sports for hitting the jackpot in life. May whites and Asians look to other ways like business.
There is a difference but physically it doesn't make a big difference. Mentally, educationally, Your backgrown makes a big difference.

Your point is well taken. If scientists are afraid publish the truth about one thing they may be afraid to publish the truth about other things.

It surprises me that the Sickle Cell was ever made public.

Posted by: GREYROOSTER at August 05, 2013 05:32 PM

3 This same effect can be noticed in music. Let's make a list of history's greatest virtuosos: Pagannini, Liszt, Casals, de Lucia, Heifitz, Yamashita... I could go on.

They all have one thing in common: They are not from the British Isles. The simple fact is, all the guys who play guitar like I wish I could play guitar are named Paco, Pepe, or Kazuhito... OK, there's Steve Vai, but the Vai puts him in south-east Europe.

It's not desire, discipline, or time invested, it's genetics. If you are from the British Isles, you have a slightly different neuromuscular system from folks from northern Europe, a more different system than southern Europe, and it diverges from there.

There is a reason there is a German/Latin divide on the Continent, and despite the numerous invasions, further differences from the British Isles (The Britons defeated the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, and Normans by diluting their DNA into near nothingness).

But of course, I'm a racist for pointing this out because I'm white, even though I'm pointing out that whites are inferior to latins as potential musical virtuosos.

Posted by: Pizza the Hut at August 05, 2013 06:37 PM

4 rooster @ 2-
Exactly! If you were a space alien parked in orbit of our planet listening in on our 'culture' would you think black folk were born for the purpose of entertainment? I think I would. I never looked at that picture of Trayvon and said 'There goes the next rap star or athlete'. I didn't say 'now there's the guy who cures cancer'. What I thought when I saw that picture was 'thug'. Because that's how thugs want to look. And no, I'm not a racist.

Posted by: EROWMER at August 05, 2013 09:18 PM

5 There is a difference between people. Mother nature worked its miracles on all creatures. Why are pacific Islanders like Samoans, Tongans so big strong and athletic? I know but ain't going to tell because the only man to ever kick my ass was a Samoan. Look at a Man from New Guinea and tell me he's the same as a Swede. Races are different and Nationalities differ from those of the same race.

People from cold climates had to think harder than someone in a mild climate that wasn't concerned about cold or starving during the winter. The colder the climate the larger the animals. It took more preparation and more thinking to live out long winters. Swedes, Icelanders, Nords are bigger because all animals in northern climates are bigger than their counterparts in warmer areas. Nature has set it up for more species to live in areas near the equator and less species in larger numbers in colder climates. Parts of Africa have people that average 4'6" and other tribes that many grow over 7 ft.
Somehow, someway it is now racist to bring the subject up. Darwin got it right. Darwin was the world's biggest RACIST. For some unexplained reason many times telling the truth is considered RACIST.
Your are racist if you say Whites and Asians do better in school than blacks and Indians. You're simply telling the truth but you will be considered a racist for saying it. Whites swim better than blacks. You're a racist. Blacks are more explosive athletically than others. (except Samoan types) Bad example, that's not racist. Whites are better at business. That's racist. Whites are more inventive. That's racist. Mother nature is racist because she is the one who either gave or left out certain qualities. American Indians are good fist fighters. Not racist. Whites and Asians do better in school than Indians. RACIST. I live in an age where saying that whites can do things better than others is racist. But the opposite isn't racist.
I admit I'm a racist. I also don't give a shit about the differences in races. Doesn't excuse a damn thing. I'm still a racist. I don't believe the Islamic religion will ever be compatible with others. I'm therefore an Islamophobe.
I believe Nordic people are superior to others in many ways. RACIST. But take a good look at the Germans. Their abilities are same as a Brazilian Indian????? Or 99% of the rest of the world for that matter.
I admit to being a racist, Islamophobe. So some asshole thinks he's going to upset me by calling me what I freely admit to. Experience has taught me that only true racists call others racist.

Posted by: GREYROOSTER at August 05, 2013 10:54 PM

6 Keyans running faster - yes in a place where lions live it pays to be able to run fast (or faster than the other guy - that joke is actually from Kenya). The other side of it is being able to run TO the lion (in certain tribes hunting/killing a lion gets you status that gets you wive(s) and lions can run at 35 mph when they want to.

Some people are morons for thinking everyone is the same and has exactly the same abilities (and anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist).

They themselves have just demonstrated how some people are ALOT dumber than others, and may demonstrate in the future the lower ability to survive with that trait.

Posted by: warbartonzz at August 06, 2013 09:06 AM

7 CNN? I thought they died of rape in Egypt!

Posted by: obsidian at August 06, 2013 10:30 AM

8 In the nation of Kenya long distance running is the national sport. The best of their athletes attempt to excel at it. Think of it. No football, no baseball, no basketball, not much on soccer, no tennis. What remains is running. And now you know why Kenyans do well at long distance running. Everyone in the country gives it a try.

Ever notice that the Philippine islands has few world class athletes. Actually, they excel at fighting but that's not the reason.
Do you know what the national sport in the Philippines is?
Chicken Fighting. Before the Superdome the Eddie Arenetta stadium in Manila was the world's largest dome.
No football, no baseball, no tennis, no baseball. Just Chicken fighting and a little boxing. They aren't good football players because they don't have access to football. But they are pretty good chicken fighters.

Now how many white boys try out for long distance running?

Posted by: GREYROOSTER at August 06, 2013 12:47 PM






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.004 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0025 seconds, 16 records returned.
Page size 17 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.