The Des Moines Register editorial board criticized the House Select Committee on Benghazi, writing that it's time to "cut bait" on the endeavor because its most recent "exercise" proved that the committee is "nothing but a political tool for the GOP."
The committee, which Fox News clamored for and helped along by running over one thousand mostly myth-filled segments in the 20 months following the attack, has attempted to maintain its credibility despite admissions by prominent Republicans and Fox News itself that its intentions are "political" and aimed at hurting Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential chances.
The Register's October 29 editorial discussed the committee, and specifically Clinton's testimony at its October 22 hearing, and explained that while the 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya "was a matter deserving of close congressional scrutiny," answers to questions about the attack "were answered definitively more than a year ago." The editorial also criticized Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) for seeming "more and more like a conspiracy theorist and less and less like a congressman" in light of his many questions at the hearing about the personal relationship between Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal. The editorial continued:
The exercise seemed to confirm only what House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said recently, praising the committee's work as it relates to Clinton's then-declining poll numbers.
In defending the committee's work, Gowdy says he has interviewed 41 witnesses that no other committee interviewed, including seven who were eyewitnesses. But this claim simply underscores the fact that Gowdy has strayed far afield of previous investigations, broadening the scope of previous inquiries while still producing nothing of substance.
In fact, Gowdy says he is now focused on Clinton's emails -- but only, he insists, those that "relate to Libya and Benghazi." It's hard to conceive of any emails that would shed any sort of light on the tragedy in Benghazi. His time would be better spent looking into congressional refusals to provide funding, requested by the State Department, for additional security at foreign installations.
Now top Senate Democrats are asking the Republican National Committee to reimburse taxpayers for the committee's expenses. The Democratic request is political theater that only serves to heighten the partisan divide in Congress, but the Democrats are justified in their outrage.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi proved itself to be nothing but a political tool for the GOP -- one that cost the American taxpayers almost $5 million.
Like Americans for Prosperity, the Beacon Hill Institute, and the State Policy Network before it, the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) is the latest oil industry front group to run a deceptive op-ed campaign against the EPA's climate change plan, with NBCC president Harry C. Alford alleging in newspapers across the country that the Clean Power Plan will impose "economic hardship" on blacks and Hispanics. None of these newspapers disclosed that the NBCC has received $1 million from the ExxonMobil Foundation, and the op-eds themselves rely on climate science denial and thoroughly debunked industry-linked studies in an attempt to dismiss the financial and health benefits the Clean Power Plan will provide to black and Hispanic communities.
Iowa Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joni Ernst has canceled or declined to meet with editorial boards at several major Iowa newspapers, including the Des Moines Register, the largest circulation daily in the state.
In interviews with Media Matters, staffers at those outlets suggested Ernst's lack of availability is nearly unprecedented.
Ernst is a state senator and the Republican nominee for the Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Tom Harkin. She is facing Democratic challenger Bruce Braley, currently a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
In a post to Facebook this morning, Rekha Basu, a Register columnist who participates in the endorsement interviews, announced Ernst had "unilaterally" canceled a planned meeting with her paper's editorial board. Noting she had "also begged off meetings with The Cedar Rapids Gazette and The Dubuque Telegraph-Herald," Basu asked, "Is Joni Ernst afraid of newspaper editorial boards?"
Basu told Media Matters that such a cancellation by a major party U.S. Senate candidate has never occurred before during her 23 years at the paper.
"Never, not that I'm aware of," Basu said. "Not in the time I've been here, no refusing."
Basu, who declined to speculate on Ernst's reason for pulling out of the meeting, pointed out that Ernst did meet with the editorial board in May during the Republican primary and received the paper's endorsement at that time.
"I think it's a very important forum in which to explain one's positions and stand up for them, to make the case for why they are the best person to be elected," Basu said. "I would hope that if someone is committed to being in the U.S. Senate that they would be able to share directly with reporters and editors their reasons and uphold their policy positions."
The paper has yet to endorse a U.S. Senate candidate for the general election next month.
Editors at other Iowa newspapers also spoke out about Ernst declining or avoiding meetings.
"We never got anything on the schedule," said Elizabeth Schott, director of editorial relations for the Cedar Rapids Gazette. "We did request, we offered, we would have liked to interview her, but they chose to spend her time elsewhere. I cannot recall a time that that has happened before. We interviewed 27 other candidates this season, from county supervisor all the way up to U.S. Senate."
Amy Gilligan, managing editor of the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald and a member of the editorial board, said she does not believe another major candidate had declined to meet with the newspaper in her 25 years on staff.
"I don't think it's ever happened," she said. "I was surprised, we have the senators in Iowa, it's a huge position and we have such long-serving senators that they're nationally known and iconic and Senator [Chuck] Grassley and Harkin have always made time to come here."
Numerous local newspapers failed to identify the fossil fuel funding behind Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, while allowing him to publish op-eds across the country misleadingly attacking a potential tax credit for wind power, while ignoring subsidies for the oil and gas industries.
As Midwestern states assess the damage wrought by record flooding in recent weeks, scientists tell Media Matters that the media has missed an important part of the story: the impact of climate change. A Media Matters analysis finds that less than 3 percent of television and print coverage of the flooding mentioned climate change, which has increased the frequency of large rain storms and exacerbated flood risks.
Seven out of eight scientists interviewed by Media Matters agreed that climate change is pertinent to coverage of recent flooding in the Midwest. Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer told Media Matters it is "not only appropriate, but advisable" for the press to note that rainstorms in the Midwest are increasing in frequency and that climate models "suggest this trend will continue," which will contribute to more flooding. Aquatic ecologist Don Scavia added that this is the "new normal," and that the media is "missing an important piece of information" by ignoring this trend.
Indeed, climate change has been almost entirely absent from national and local reporting on the floods. Only one of 74 television segments mentioned climate change, on CBS News. ABC, NBC and CNN never mentioned the connection.
Meanwhile, USA TODAY was the only national print outlet to report on Midwest floods in the context of climate change. USA TODAY also created a video, featured above, explaining the connection as part of a year-long series on the impacts of climate change.
The Midwest has experienced near record flooding this spring, resulting in four deaths, extensive property damage, and disruptions of agriculture and transportation. Evidence suggests that manmade climate change has increased the frequency of heavy downpours, and will continue to increase flooding risks. But in their ample coverage of Midwestern flooding, major media outlets rarely mentioned climate change.
Climate change was almost entirely absent from the political discourse this election season, receiving less than an hour of TV coverage over three months from the major cable and broadcast networks excluding MSNBC. By contrast, those outlets devoted nearly twice as much coverage to Vice President Joe Biden's demeanor during his debate with Rep. Paul Ryan. When climate change was addressed, print and TV media outlets often failed to note the scientific consensus or speak to scientists.
Media outlets continue to report that Sen. Joe Biden was accused in 1987 of plagiarizing then-British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without noting that while Biden did paraphrase from a Kinnock speech without attribution on at least two occasions in August 1987, he had reportedly credited Kinnock when previously using the same language.
The Des Moines Register asserted that Sen. John McCain is a "supporter of comprehensive immigration reform" without noting that he now says he would not support his bill if it came up for a vote in the Senate, and that he has reversed himself on a key issue. Similarly, the Associated Press reported that "[t]he three leading candidates for president have somewhat similar views on illegal immigration reform," but did not note McCain's reversals.
A Des Moines Register article reported that Mitt Romney "defended the Bush administration's use of wiretaps to spy on suspected terrorists," quoting Romney asserting that President Bush "has done what was necessary here with the Patriot Act, as well as by listening in when al-Qaida was calling." But the article simply ignored the central issue in the debate: whether the government should have to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on communications involving people in the United States.
The Des Moines Register's endorsement of Sen. John McCain praised him for "taking stands based on principle, not party dogma," citing his positions on immigration reform and President Bush's tax cuts, among others. However, as noted in several reports, McCain has shifted his position on immigration reform and actually reversed his position on the tax cuts.