47% Benghazi
Evan Williams
Copyright 2013 by Evan Williams
Smashwords Edition


47% Benghazi




Shrill and Fluff  

The 47% comment and comments on Benghazi illustrate how media often does more to assist in polarizing the country, than doing the hard work of presenting the full story. Journalistic integrity is being crowded out by shrill and fluff. It is true that political fighting even in its most vicious form has been a part of the American fabric since the earliest days, but the volume, the speed, the countless distribution points and endless repetition of it is taking its toll in ways we have yet to fully realize. If you read this all the way through you will hopefully be treated to, at the very least, a different point of view on these two events. My take on 47% could be said to lean to the right if only a little bit and my comments on Benghazi lean to the left a big bit.


47% Gaff and miss     

The big miss on the 47% comment is howif everyone jumped on the percentage when it likely was coming from something else. A high forty percent is a known number among political consultants that no matter how appealing you are or how much money you spend it is very likely the other candidate will hit around that number when talking about presidential politics. In fact that is explicitly what Mitt Romney said in his first sentences. "Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47% who are with him."   This notion that a forty percent plus number is against you is true whether talking about a Republican or Democratic candidate. I believe this is where this specific number most likely came from. Stating this in no way excuses the rest of his comments or lessens how hurtful they were to so many. 
When Mitt Romney was speaking he did something that many do when presenting or speaking at an event. He put two things together that are related in his head, but are different things. First was the difficulty to win a majority, since 47% is most likely already a lock for the President.  And the second was a conservative belief that there are many people who are exploiting the system. Again it is still a very discouraging thing that he said what he did. The real question should have been was it a gaff or a deliberate miss use of the 47% number because he thought it would play better to the audience. 
Commentators and journalist should have done a better job and at least put forth the idea that Romney misspoke and mashed two ideas together. Again, it would have been reasonable to debate whether he did it intentionally, but it was at least somewhat inappropriate to itemize out all that would have to be on the take to get to a 47% number without also talking about it as a gaff and a combining of two topics. I think it was not as much a gaff, but more likely a willingness to slide into what he thought the audience would want to hear, and what would get the audience motivated and doing more to support him. There are other times reaching back into the primary when Mitt Romney said things that seemed to have been an attempt to appeal to the far right, even when it seemed to be a reversal of previously held position. In a way I think that was part of what happened here. 
If you think that Mitt Romney really believed that 47% are takers and support the president for their free gifts, then you are saying that since President Obama won with 51%, that he believes only 4% of those that voted for the president are non-takers. He was governor of Massachusetts, and he's been in politics long enough to know that there is more money and support on the democratic side than that. In the end we are left with two big issues that did not get addressed the way they should have because of the how the focus on 47% played out. The most important is that the belief that there are takers in society bringing us down is more a republican issue and thought than it was actually a Romney one. And the other, as so often stated already, 47% was not exactly what everyone believed it to be.

Sunday Benghazi

As for Benghazi this commentary focuses just on how things blew up after Ambassador Rice's appearance on the Sunday talk shows. She did make a mistake, but not the one that many are screaming about. I will get to that in a bit, but let’s start with why Ambassador Rice was the one selected. She was chosen because in the administration's eyes she was who they wanted to be the next Secretary of State. The events of September 11th were horrible, so the expectation was not that she would seem like the next Secretary during or directly after making the rounds, but more that, after the election, the administration would at that point be able to put her out as the choice for next head of State, as subsequently they actually still tried to do. 
So that hope back in September when they sent her out was that her appearance would have been a suitable future mention event to showcase her as a good choice. The administration was not anticipating the push-back that followed. She was sent not to miss lead, but to showcase her talent. If there is any accusation that could stick it's that these appearances did not help showcase her as a good replacement to Secretary Clinton. In fact it sunk her chances.
Politicians are measured by not only what they say, but also by how they are heard. Often these two things end up being more different than they should. It's part of the fight that no matter what you say, opponents will take some liberty with it and twist it, but even with that, it is still a responsibility to make sure you are heard as best possible. Ambassador Rice's big mistake was not doing a better job of taking that task on. 
This was a violent and tragic event. Americans when first hearing of the attack, Republican and Democrat, thought that since it's happening on September 11th it's not a coincidence. That was a reasonable assumption, and dealing with that assumption head on is what Ambassador Rice should have done if she wanted to be heard. She should have lead with "I'm sure for many Americans hearing of this horrible event happening on this day on September 11th have to wonder if it is al Qaeda. The initial report, and it's very early for this and a full and comprehensive investigation with us ultimately tracking down and bringing those responsible to justice is under way, but the initial report is that this might have been due to outrage over the anti-Islamic film and committed by extremist." Now she was close to that if you piece together her opening sentences, but she lacked starting from the question "Is this al Qaeda?" 
But that’s not the same as saying  al Qaeda was not considered. CBS host Bob Schieffer actually asked that specifically.  "Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?" Schieffer when saying "him" was referring to Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf (President, Libya's General National Congress) whom he was speaking with just before Ambassador Rice. Her response: "Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine." This comment again should have been the first things she said because that might have averted so much of the controversy. 
That withstanding I do not see how this never received its own version of a Candy Crowley "he did call it an act of terrorism" moment.  For Ambassador Rice to say it’s either al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates, or Libyan-based extremists is essentially saying terrorist. For most Americans saying al Qaeda, even in this list form, is the same as saying terrorist. I can't think of anyone that would say a member of al Qaeda is not a terrorist. Well maybe a leftist pinko would say that, but not a republican. How in the world did republicans say what they did with this quote in the middle of her comments? I am baffled how this direct question from Bob Schieffer and Ambassador Rice's response did not get attention once this thing blew up the way that it did.
The anti-Islamic video issue also got jumbled. The analyst, those closest to the information and the first to try and figure out what happened, had multiple sources for judging that the video had a part. A big mistake was the use of the words protest and demonstration. In other cities there was what could be called violent protests. When speaking of the attack in Benghazi it would have been more accurate to say our best information is that the video incited the attack and that it was a motivating factor. The use of the word protest conjures up the idea of people standing around with signs that somehow and at some point throw them down and pick up guns and start an assault. The analysts, those responsible for first getting the video into the mix, did not have that view at all. Their assertion again was causality. Ambassador Rice chose the words that she did because she believed the assessment of causality. 
She and others along the way as the information about the attack filtered up, did not make the right effort to segregate the description of events. In Cairo, describing it as a violent protest was appropriate. Using the word protest with Benghazi again was not appropriate. Lastly with over forty people attacking the compound the truth might still, even now, end up having some actually have the video as what motivated them to participate. And that really is a very big deal. If the attack force had been half the size it was we might be talking about four dead terrorist instead of four dead Americans. That's a stretch, maybe unfair to say, but ultimately getting all those involved will not only be justice, it will be important for a complete understanding. 


Conclusion

The point of this short essay was to first point out the beliefs I have on the two issues. But it was also to complain about media. I feel my opinions, while maybe not shared by many, are at least fair and should have been floated a little bit more broadly. Media has the resources, they have talented people, but they are falling short. The assertion that 47% was not the number everyone thought it was and that Ambassador Rice actually said al Qaeda (which for many is as good as saying terrorist) on that Sunday should have been passed around and not left to just to this short piece. I know two little points even if they were on some big issues of the day does not make a case for the media falling short. However, it's not a reach to talk about the impact of both the explosive growth in internet and talk radio on how they have impacted media. In fact someone could write a whole book on it. For now I am not going that far or dedicating that size of an effort, so this isn’t that book.    
While there is tons of quantifiable good that has come from a more open system and a vast array of news sources and commentary from online, more should be done to look at the possible negatives. The race for eyeballs and to win over more fans has pressurized media with often less desirable results. Echoing my fear I blurted at the start, that with so much out there, efforts to be fair are being crowded out by shrill and fluff. And, if you made it to this last line hopefully you are not saying those two words of this.