This blog post hilariously asks why the Benghazi scandal wasn’t covered with the same level of intensity as the Khans’ story.
Checkout this video:
asks media why they gave the Khans so much coverage and not Benghazi victims
What happened in Benghazi
What happened in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012? That’s a question that a lot of people have been asking ever since the attacks that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
The short answer is that a group of Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing Stevens and three other Americans.
The long answer is a bit more complicated. There has been a lot of finger-pointing and blame-shifting in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, and it can be hard to keep track of all the different story lines.
Here’s a brief overview of what we know so far:
The Benghazi attacks were carried out by a group of Islamic militants, not by ordinary Libyans protesting against an offensive video as initially claimed by the Obama administration.
U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed in the attacks, along with three other Americans: diplomat Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
There was ample warning prior to the attacks that they were going to happen, but the security at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi was woefully inadequate.
In the aftermath of the attacks, senior officials in the Obama administration made misleading statements about what had happened, including then-Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice , who claimed on national television that the attack had been sparked by protests against an offensive video .
Benghazi has become a major political liability for Hillary Clinton , who was secretary of state at the time of the attacks and who is now running for president .
The media’s coverage of Benghazi
Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the media’s coverage of Benghazi. Some people have accused the media of being biased, while others have defended the media’s coverage.
One person who has been outspoken about the media’s coverage of Benghazi is comedienne Kathy Griffin. In a recent interview, Griffin said, “I’m just wondering why we’re not seeing more 24-hour news coverage of [Benghazi], like we did with the Khans.”
The Khans are the parents of a Muslim soldier who was killed in Iraq. They became famous when they spoke out against Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention. After they spoke out, Trump attacked them and there was a lot of news coverage about the whole situation.
Griffin went on to say that she thinks the media is afraid to cover Benghazi because it will make people feel uncomfortable. She said, “I think that a lot of people in the media are just scared… to really look into [Benghazi] and ask hard questions.”
It’s hard to say whether or not Griffin is right about the media’s coverage of Benghazi. However, her comments do raise some valid points about how the media covers different stories.
The Khans are a Muslim family who live in America. They have a son named Humayun who was killed in the Iraq War. The Khans have been in the news recently because they spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Some people have been asking why the media is not covering the Benghazi attack in the same way that they are covering the Khans.
Who are the Khans
The Khans are a family of Pakistani American origin who became the center of a political controversy during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. The family’s patriarch, Khizr Khan, is a lawyer who emigrated to the United States in 1980. His son, Humayun Khan, was a Muslim American soldier who was killed in 2004 while serving in the Iraq War.
During the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Khizr Khan spoke about his son’s sacrifice and criticized then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his statements about Muslims. In response, Trump questioned why Khan’s wife, Ghazala, did not speak at the convention and suggested that she may have been prevented from doing so because of her Muslim faith. These comments drew widespread criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.
The media’s coverage of the Khans
The Khans, a Muslim-American family, have been in the news a lot lately. They have been very critical of Donald Trump, and they have even spoken at the Democratic National Convention.
Some people have accused the media of giving the Khans too much coverage, and of not covering other stories that are just as important. For example, why wasn’t there more coverage of the Benghazi attacks?
There are a few reasons why the Khans’ story has been so heavily covered. First, they are an anomaly: a Muslim-American family who is highly critical of Trump. Second, they have a compelling personal story: their son was killed in combat while serving in the US military. And third, their story fits into a larger narrative about Trump and his relationship to Muslims and to the military.
So while some people might think that the media is overdoing it with their coverage of the Khans, there are actually pretty good reasons why their story is being given so much attention.
Why the difference in coverage
It’s been a little over a week since the U.S. lost four of its citizens in Benghazi, and some people are still asking why the news coverage has been so different than when the family of Capt. Humayun Khan was in the Democratic National Convention spotlight. Well, let’s take a look at the two situations and see if we can figure out why.
Possible explanations for the difference in coverage
When it comes to the news, some events are given more attention than others. Some believe that the media covers certain stories more than others because they favor one political party over the other. In recent years, there has been a lot of discussion about the different ways the media has covered Democratic and Republican presidents.
In 2016, for example, many people felt that the media was harder on Hillary Clinton than they were on Donald Trump. At the same time, some felt that the media was not giving enough coverage to Clinton’s emails or to the Benghazi incident.
On the other hand, some people believe that the media actually favors Republicans more than Democrats. They point to examples such as the way Bill Clinton was covered during his impeachment trial or how Barack Obama was often referred to as “Barack Hussein Obama.”
There are a number of possible explanations for the difference in coverage. One theory is that the media is biased against Democrats. Another theory is that the media is biased against Republicans. A third theory is that the media simply covers stories that they think will be of interest to their viewers or readers.
The implications of the difference in coverage
The implications of the difference in coverage are that one story is more important than the other, or that one story is more newsworthy than the other. In this case, the story of the Khans is more newsworthy than the story of Benghazi. This could be because the Khans are a more sympathetic story, or because their story is more graphic and emotional. It could also be because the Khans are a better known family, or because they have been in the news more recently. Whatever the reason, the difference in coverage implies that one story is more important than the other.