Question Asked and Answered
The New York Times has come under serious fire for their article yesterday on Benghazi, the motives of which can be summed up by reading between the lines of a follow-up from Timesman Andrew Rosenthal, in which he responds, Obama-style, "let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton." In his own defense of it, David Kirkpatrick, who wrote the article yesterday tweets, "we had a reporter on the scene talking to attackers during attack -- still invaluable. To which another Twitter user responds, "Either you're full of sh** or a [New York Times] reporter stood by while 4 Americans died. Which is it?"
Without discarding the first possibility, we can set the Wayback Machine to 1989 and ask the late Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace what they'd do if they were in the field covering that sort of situation:
[jwplayer config="pjmedia_eddriscoll" mediaid="70052"]
There's a reason why that clip is titled, "Jennings & Wallace, reporters first, Americans second." And that's very much the attitude that exists at the Gray Lady as well -- even when someone from their party is in the White House and Foggy Bottom.
Update: Lots of questions being raised by Twitter users from the above admission by the Times, including, "how does one embed with a random, spontaneous protest sparked by a video? what luck," "How much of the attack did the NYT witness?!?", and "So you knew an attack was coming enough in advance to send a reporter?"
@robertcobrien @ddknyt @nytimes @BradThor what is the ethical line for a journalist? Just watching a US Amb being attacked by terrorists?
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) December 31, 2013
See above video, which until informed otherwise, I'm assuming to be the default position of the 21st century New York Times. Perhaps Congress could inquire further...
(Bumped to top.)