… so where’s the media?
Oh by the way, it was the Obama administration, not the Trump administration. Does that answer the question? Probably. You see, Ben Rhodes, who was National Security Adviser to Barack Obama, is a “person of interest” in the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the leaking of “the names of associates of President Donald Trump that were incidentally collected in U.S. government eavesdropping.”
If you go to Bing or Google and search for Ben Rhodes, you probably won’t see that story printed in any MSM outlet. I didn’t at 3am today. I saw a story from RedState, and a story from The Right Scoop and from the American Thinker. I even saw one from Breitbart, generously listed in the news section. But no NBC or New York Times or CBS or CNN articles. And that includes even mentioning that he appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The news comes from Circa, which is nothing like Breitbart and should not be a suspect source for media to credit. “This stuff happened, Circa reports,” is a fine thing to write and credible.
The blandly named Media Bias Fact Check website, which incidentally lists RedState as “right biased”, puts their stamp of approval on Circa as Least Biased.
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: Circa News is a news and opinion website owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group. The stated purpose of the website is to provide news geared toward millennials that is low biased so they can form their own opinions. For the most part news stories are written with minimal bias and free from loaded words. Most stories are well sourced and factual. (4/11/2017)
In the past Circa has been cited by Powerline, a respected conservative source, and Gizmodo, a beloved leftist/technogeek source. Not to mention Popular Science, Smithsonian.com, the Daily Mail, and more.
Good enough? So where are the stories about Rhodes? Doing a Bing search of the CNN website produced only this: “On Tuesday, Senate investigators also met with Obama’s former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.” The same search on the New York Times site produced this: “We didn’t find any results for ben rhodes site:nytimes.com.”
This is of course not comprehensive. It’s possible there are stories floating around out there. But would they be so hard to find if it weren’t an Obama official? If the people wronged weren’t who they are?
And this is, of course, not the FBI or law enforcement. It’s just Congress. They’re just investigating. Things I’m totally sure would matter if these shoes were worn by someone else. This is where the emoji movie would roll its eyes.
It’s more than obvious to say that if this were a Trump official it would be literally everywhere, since the Trump people who had their names leaked were and ARE reported on constantly as a result of the unmasking. But I submit that this would be big news if it were a Bush official. Or even a Reagan one.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s employee was conspiring in either fraud or something much more sinister, and Ben Rhodes is a s-called person of interest in the potentially illegal unmasking of people who were incidentally spied on by the NSA, and I guess that’s just not very interesting to the media.
Isn’t that odd? (Hint: No, it’s not. Actually, it’s de riguer.)
After I went live, a friend disagreed with me that the media would report on this (and bigly) were it a Trump official, saying it’s a nothing story because it doesN’t really mean or indicate anything. Funny, they sure reported on Jared Kushner appearing before the EXACT SAME committee a couple of weeks ago. Man, THAT’S weird.