Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    I came here to my favorite site to find out about the hearing, and Boston.com has zero articles.  Why is this?

     




     Because Boston.com sucks. Duh.

     

     

    NYT has it front page. Stop crying.

     



    Day 2 of it not being on the front fold.

     

     

     




     

    So let's just recap. The original post asked "Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?" Followed by "I came here to my favorite site to find out about the hearing, and Boston.com has zero articles.  Why is this?"

    It gets pointed out that BDC did indeed have more than zero articles. But you respond with "Day 2 of it not being on the front fold."

    I suppose you'll next complain that the pictures of said hearings as posted on BDC were not big enough, or they didn't put them in the weather/sports/entertainment section as well.

     

     

     



    I look on the front page.  Not there.

     

    I look in national.  Not there.

    I look in politics.  Not there.

     

    The references are front page, or  top of the fold. That's where the important knews goes.   Yesterday and today, nothing above the fold.  Today, one very slanted article below the fold.That's my complaint.  I kinda figured the globe would bury articles about Bengazi in the Lifestyle section.  

    Where are these other articles?  The New Bedford page?

     




    Your original post refered to Boston.com as having zero articles on the hearings. I pointed out how they did, in fact, have more than zero articles. You counter that they weren't on the frontpage or top of the fold..... where the "important" news goes.

     

    You must get up pretty early to do the stretching required to perform the mental gymnastics that you do. Is there some form conservative right-wing Yoga that I'm not aware of?

     



    At the time, my post was true, as I was refering to the hearings, not that Boston.com never had any article about bengahzi.

    The top of the fold is newspaper talk, which considering oyu work for a newspaper, you think you would know.  Or, do you put all your important articles on the obits page?

    If you need to go looking for a Benjahzi hearings article the day of the hearing, and it isn't on the front page, that tells you all you need to know about the "journalism" going on here.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Where is all the coverage on the House vote on the Working Families Flexibility Act ...... what's that you say ... it's a bill that allow employers to offer time off to employees instead of paying overtime when a employee works over 40 hours a week .

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    Where is all the coverage on the House vote on the Working Families Flexibility Act ...... what's that you say ... it's a bill that allow employers to offer time off to employees instead of paying overtime when a employee works over 40 hours a week .




    why do you think they want to do that?

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:


     

    That's what they're there for. And what is going on is that Republicans are trying to blame Obama. Hence this investigation.


    Repubilcans are trying to blame him. Whether they are justified remains to be seen.




    Really? It couldn't be just to find out the rootcause, contributing factors and proper preventive and corrective actions from an event that cost 4 America lives, millions in property damage, and anger in a large part of the population because of conflicting information being given out by our leaders for 2 weeks after it happened?

    No it must be just to get Obama. geez

    Im not saying that some are not doing it thinking it will lead to Obama but, from what I have read it will never likely get up past Hillary without some extraordinary revelation coming out.

    In fact Hillary is the highest I have even heard implicated officially.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    Where is all the coverage on the House vote on the Working Families Flexibility Act ...... what's that you say ... it's a bill that allow employers to offer time off to employees instead of paying overtime when a employee works over 40 hours a week .

     




    why do you think they want to do that?

     




    More work ... less pay ?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    Where is all the coverage on the House vote on the Working Families Flexibility Act ...... what's that you say ... it's a bill that allow employers to offer time off to employees instead of paying overtime when a employee works over 40 hours a week .

     

    why do you think they want to do that?

    More work ... less pay ?



    How do you get more work? They are offering them more time off.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    tvoter any way you look at it ... it is more work for less take home pay ...... and for information you can't eat flex time ... it doesn't pay for a pair of kids shoes ... it doesn't pay for an oil change ..... it doesn't pay for a Christmas present..... I would like to ask you a question ....if the OT rate for an hourly worker is time and a half and he or she worked 4 hours of OT .... would that  worker get 4 hours off or would they get 6 hours off ?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:


    You haven't been paying much attention the last 4.5 years, have you?




    Yes I have just not with the hard left mentality like you.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Even the repubs admit the hearings didn't add any new, substantive info.

    The term "witch hunt" was used several times.

    Even the Libyans are wondering what the BFD is....

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    I came here to my favorite site to find out about the hearing, and Boston.com has zero articles.  Why is this?

     




     Because Boston.com sucks. Duh.

     

     

    NYT has it front page. Stop crying.

     



    Day 2 of it not being on the front fold.

     

     

     




     

    So let's just recap. The original post asked "Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?" Followed by "I came here to my favorite site to find out about the hearing, and Boston.com has zero articles.  Why is this?"

    It gets pointed out that BDC did indeed have more than zero articles. But you respond with "Day 2 of it not being on the front fold."

    I suppose you'll next complain that the pictures of said hearings as posted on BDC were not big enough, or they didn't put them in the weather/sports/entertainment section as well.

     

     

     



    I look on the front page.  Not there.

     

    I look in national.  Not there.

    I look in politics.  Not there.

     

    The references are front page, or  top of the fold. That's where the important knews goes.   Yesterday and today, nothing above the fold.  Today, one very slanted article below the fold.That's my complaint.  I kinda figured the globe would bury articles about Bengazi in the Lifestyle section.  

    Where are these other articles?  The New Bedford page?

     




    Your original post refered to Boston.com as having zero articles on the hearings. I pointed out how they did, in fact, have more than zero articles. You counter that they weren't on the frontpage or top of the fold..... where the "important" news goes.

     

    You must get up pretty early to do the stretching required to perform the mental gymnastics that you do. Is there some form conservative right-wing Yoga that I'm not aware of?

     

     



    At the time, my post was true, as I was refering to the hearings, not that Boston.com never had any article about bengahzi.

     

    The top of the fold is newspaper talk, which considering oyu work for a newspaper, you think you would know.  Or, do you put all your important articles on the obits page?

    If you need to go looking for a Benjahzi hearings article the day of the hearing, and it isn't on the front page, that tells you all you need to know about the "journalism" going on here.

     




    Sorry, but at the time of your post, it wasn't true. You posted on 5/8 @ 7:10 pm. There was, indeed, an article on BDC on 5/8 with comments starting @ 12:58 pm. That would have given you 6 hours and 12 minutes to find it.

     

     




    I couldn't find it.  The Globe didn't put it up front, they buried it.  It was deep on the site, and I think page 9 in the printed paper.  I guess Obama and Hillary lying about the video and issueing a stand-down order that leads to four dead Americans is no big deal to liberals.

    This is front page news, and you won't cover it properly. 


     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    I came here to my favorite site to find out about the hearing, and Boston.com has zero articles.  Why is this?

     




     Because Boston.com sucks. Duh.

     

     

    NYT has it front page. Stop crying.

     



    Day 2 of it not being on the front fold.

     

     

     




     

    So let's just recap. The original post asked "Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?" Followed by "I came here to my favorite site to find out about the hearing, and Boston.com has zero articles.  Why is this?"

    It gets pointed out that BDC did indeed have more than zero articles. But you respond with "Day 2 of it not being on the front fold."

    I suppose you'll next complain that the pictures of said hearings as posted on BDC were not big enough, or they didn't put them in the weather/sports/entertainment section as well.

     

     

     



    I look on the front page.  Not there.

     

    I look in national.  Not there.

    I look in politics.  Not there.

     

    The references are front page, or  top of the fold. That's where the important knews goes.   Yesterday and today, nothing above the fold.  Today, one very slanted article below the fold.That's my complaint.  I kinda figured the globe would bury articles about Bengazi in the Lifestyle section.  

    Where are these other articles?  The New Bedford page?

     




    Your original post refered to Boston.com as having zero articles on the hearings. I pointed out how they did, in fact, have more than zero articles. You counter that they weren't on the frontpage or top of the fold..... where the "important" news goes.

     

    You must get up pretty early to do the stretching required to perform the mental gymnastics that you do. Is there some form conservative right-wing Yoga that I'm not aware of?

     

     



    At the time, my post was true, as I was refering to the hearings, not that Boston.com never had any article about bengahzi.

     

    The top of the fold is newspaper talk, which considering oyu work for a newspaper, you think you would know.  Or, do you put all your important articles on the obits page?

    If you need to go looking for a Benjahzi hearings article the day of the hearing, and it isn't on the front page, that tells you all you need to know about the "journalism" going on here.

     




    Sorry, but at the time of your post, it wasn't true. You posted on 5/8 @ 7:10 pm. There was, indeed, an article on BDC on 5/8 with comments starting @ 12:58 pm. That would have given you 6 hours and 12 minutes to find it.

     

     




    I couldn't find it.  The Globe didn't put it up front, they buried it.  It was deep on the site, and I think page 9 in the printed paper.  I guess Obama and Hillary lying about the video and issueing a stand-down order that leads to four dead Americans is no big deal to liberals.

    This is front page news, and you won't cover it properly. 


     

     




    Well, you're either inept at using the internet, or just willfully ignorant. BDC did indeed have an article that predated your post that said there were "zero" articles about said hearings. I can provide you with a link, if you'd like. Evidently there were other, more intelligent people of your ilk, that were capable of finding the article and commenting on it.

     

    It's funny, and almost flattering, that you think that I work for the Boston Globe (BDC).

    Next thing you'll probably say is that the article wasn't presented in digital 3-D with Dolby surround sound.

    Fuqing idiot.



    It isn't even an article on the hearings.  It is an article on whether or not this impacts Hillary's presidential campaign.  Opening line:

    Politicians love few things better than a scandal to trip up their opponents, and Republicans hope last year’s fatal attack on U.S. diplomats in Libya will do exactly that to Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats.

    This isn't hard news, this is covering not the story, but how it impacts hillary and Obama.

     

    But, you keep hammering away at an article about the Bengazi hearings, which isn't really about the hearings much at all, that is placed deep in the site, on the obit page, as it where.

    Yah, go hang your journalistic head in shame.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Even the repubs admit the hearings didn't add any new, substantive info.

    The term "witch hunt" was used several times.

    Even the Libyans are wondering what the BFD is....

     

     

    I would call being demoted for telling the truth new news.

    I would call having caught Hillary and Obama lying about the video new news.

    I would call editing terrorism out of the talking points day one new news.

    If this was Bush, you would be typing in all caps about why isn't he being frog-marched out of the White House.

    And the Libyans:  I stopped worrying about what they think when they ran up the Al queda flag over their capital.

     

     

     



     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to TFefio's comment:

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE! Can you imagine if someone had said that after the boston Bombings. Only democrats get away with that. 

    Note to self, do not travel to a foreign country in the middle of an election when a sitting democrat  is trying to win a second term. You may be expendable! 




    Or sit in a NYC Hi Rise when an incompetence republican is in the Oval Office and whose advisors don't give serious attention to an intel memo that states " bin Laden determined to strike in U.A. .

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:




    At this point, what difference does it make?  It was a long time ago.

     

    And, I thought the Obama economy was humming along.

    Which is it?  Is the economy humming along, or is it a failure that requires government intervention?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    skeeter you must have a bad memory that meeting was only about 3 weeks ago .. that isn't very long ago... but to answer your question ... the economy must be getting better if not one of GOP's committee members didn't even bother to attend ... you know the reason why don't you .... do nothing to help Obama but do everything you can to hurt him ... no matter what is the collateral damage .

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    skeeter you must have a bad memory that meeting was only about 3 weeks ago .. that isn't very long ago... but to answer your question ... the economy must be getting better if not one of GOP's committee members didn't even bother to attend ... you know the reason why don't you .... do nothing to help Obama but do everything you can to hurt him ... no matter what is the collateral damage .



    In todays political climate both parties do everything to attack, hurt, blame the other party and 94% are ignorant enough believe their party is right and join the hatefest!

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Heres some:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Must be a record of this phone call!

    "The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists." Mr. Hicks himself said he spoke to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at 2 a.m. Benghazi time the day after the attack and told her it was a planned attack, not a street protest.

    Still, the administration stuck to its story and sent out Susan Rice—the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., someone with no direct connection to the event—to go on the Sunday talk shows and insist it was all about a video.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    If, true Susan Rice was used like a cheap.................

     

Share