Fox's "Love Affair" With 13 Hours Is Actually About Attacking Hillary Clinton - Wemple, WaPo

[Bill USA]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/01/20/wash-posts-wemple-explains-how-foxs-love-affair/208068

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple highlighted how Fox News' coverage of Michael Bay's 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi "is promoting the Bay movie for its potential to revive Benghazi as a problem for Clinton" during her presidential run, and how the network, in doing so, is "acting as an advocacy organization."

Fox News has hyped 13 Hours repeatedly, claiming that the film would "raise a lot of questions" about the 2012 attacks on a diplomatic post and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi. In addition to using the movie to push the debunked "stand down order" myth, Fox has argued that Bay's film could "pose a threat" to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Fox's Andrea Tantaros argued, "if anyone sees this movie ... and then goes on to vote for Hillary Clinton, they're a criminal." Prime-time host Megyn Kelly, during a segment that pushed multiple Benghazi myths, said the movie "reintroduces Benghazi as a potential campaign issue that cannot be helpful to Mrs. Clinton." Kelly also attacked Wemple for a blog post that called out Kelly and her network's "obsession" with the Benghazi attacks and their potential political implications for Clinton.

In a January 19 piece for The Washington Post's Erik Wemple blog, Wemple explained again how 13 Hours "is giving the network a do-over opportunity" to "attempt to elevate the flick as a political watershed" and "revive Benghazi as a problem for Clinton." Wemple noted that by "rooting for the movie to tilt the contemporary political debate," Fox has failed at "acting as a news organization, which reports events as they arise." Wemple concluded that any movie that negatively highlighted the Obama administration "could surely bank on similar excitement from the country's No. 1 cable news outfit":

(more)

[Bleacher Creature]

1. So is that a positive or negative on this site?

Last edited Wed Jan 20, 2016, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

I can't keep track anymore. 😉

[Bill USA]

2. Exactly. Most pro-Sanders posts are attacks of HRC & sound like they were written by TP-GOPers

Last edited Thu Jan 21, 2016, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

and those attacks do NOT site facts but shout innuendo and over-the-top unsupported accusations from newspapers in England which are every bit as reliable as FOX news.

[razorman]

3. I just saw the movie. It was actually pretty good. And non-political.

It was basically a good action film, highlighting the courage of the people on the ground there. There was no mention of Secretary Clinton, and President Obama's voice was only heard for a few seconds on a TV at the beginning of the film. It is a story worthy of telling, and the politics can sort themselves out over time.

[Orangepeel]

4. Based on the headline alone: Duh.