I’ve said many times, you should not trust a characterisation. Check the original source.
This is a classic example:
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who has an increasing reputation as a shill for the left wing, viciously attacked the Heritage Foundation in a column on Monday evening. The column, “Heritage’s ugly Benghazi panel” characterized the event as though it were a full-throated, Muslim-bashing hate-crime cleverly disguised as a public forum to discuss the Benghazi attack.
The video is in the post. Milbank’s characterisation is completely self-serving.
For example, Brigitte Gabriel was talking about an attack on “our government” and then, by way of correcting herself, asked Ahmed if she was a US citizen. No big deal really.
But Millbank described that this way:
“Are you an American?” Gabriel demanded of Ahmed, after accusing her of taking “the limelight” and before informing her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.”
Not the inflammatory language – “demanded of”, while connecting it to a later statement about political correctness.
This, my friends, is why people loathe journalists. They twist and turn and play gotcha games. Also, they make stuff up. A good editor in my past told me that he was always suspicious of reporters who rely on breaking up a quote multiple times and adding in their own words in between. It means they’re trying to force the speaker to say something. We can now call this the Milbank Rule. I mean, was everything quoted in his piece accurate? Absolutely. Were his words or description of what transpired accurate? Hell no.
The press has a lot to answer for these days.
Anyway, go have a read, and watch the video.
Something should go here, maybe later. 