Following the revelation over the weekend that CNN has acquired Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ journal in Libya, and used it in reporting, critics sifted through the facts to pick out which side they thought was acting fairly.
CNN’s own Howard Kurtz was firmly in the network’s camp on ‘Reliable Sources” Sunday
BuzzFeed’s Michael Hastings agrees, arguing that the State Department is trying to protect Secretary Clinton:
“Perhaps the real question here,” CNN responded to the State Department criticism, “Is why is the State Department now attacking the messenger.”
That is the real question, and State Department’s bizarre criticism of CNN gives clues to the answer. Foggy Bottom is now in full-on damage control mode, with the primary goal of keeping Hillary Clinton’s legacy in Libya — and in Washington — intact.
The Guardian‘s Glenn Greenwald, normally a scathing critic of U.S. media, including CNN, defended the network’s actions as “the only thing which any minimally competent journalist would and should do”:
CNN’s first obligation is to disclose to the public information that is newsworthy, not conceal it. Had they not reported this information, that would have been an inexcusable breach of their obligation – then the word “disgusting” would have been appropriate. What they reported had nothing to do with Stevens’ personal life and everything to do with his role as a government official; his family’s “permission” was therefore irrelevant.
On Fox News, Jackie Gingrich and Christine Pelosi ripped into CNN for using the journal: