Following in the footsteps of others in the right-wing media, Fox News host Sean Hannity selectively edited a video of outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to portray President Obama as "virtually absent" during the September 2012 attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. In fact, Panetta testified that White House officials were kept informed of events throughout the incident.<quoted text>
There's a difference in editing context for time's sake in order to report the important points and editing a transcript to make it sound completely different to support an agenda.
You don't mind if I just go ahead and call you stupid too?
Used to think it was just a matter of being misled and tried to give you liberals the benefit of the doubt.
But when you start pulling the leash yourselves over the cliff....
On the February 7 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity said "a major bombshell was revealed" during Panetta's testimony during a congressional briefing that Obama "was virtually absent" during the Benghazi attack. Hannity then played segments of Panetta's testimony.
But Hannity did not air the section of Panetta's testimony in which he pointed out that information about the attack "went to the White House" and that Obama stayed in contact with military officials and was "well-informed" during the attack. Hannity also failed to air a clip of Gen. Martin Dempsey stating that White House staff "was engaged with the national military command center pretty constantly through the period, which is the way it would normally work."
Hannity joins numerous other right-wing outlets in selectively editing the testimony of Panetta and Dempsey.
a FOXbot calling me stupid after it tries to tell me right wing lies are just for the sake of time.
and why not cite something that supports your point? give us the unedited video to compare with the edited version.
come on, let's see it.
or you could do your little 'I've had enough for today' number and leave us all hanging. might be best.