{"id":10367,"date":"2013-05-29T01:14:36","date_gmt":"2013-05-29T08:14:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=10367"},"modified":"2013-05-29T01:14:36","modified_gmt":"2013-05-29T08:14:36","slug":"open-thread5292013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2013\/05\/29\/open-thread5292013\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Thread–5\/29\/2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have a second article today, but I\u2019m still feeling pretty weak.  As time goes on, this should get better.<\/font><\/p>\n

Jig Zone Puzzle<\/strong>:<\/font><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s took me 3:51 (average 4:53).  To do it, click here<\/a>. How did you do?<\/font><\/p>\n

Short Takes<\/strong>:<\/font><\/p>\n

From Media Matters<\/a>: <\/font>On May 10, ABC News reported what it characterized as a major "exclusive" on the consulate attacks in Benghazi, Libya.  Claiming to have "obtained" key administration e-mails, the report appeared to illustrate White House and State Department aides editing out references to terrorism in talking points for political reasons.<\/p>\n

The story seemed to vindicate conservatives, who for months had been screaming about a cover-up.  But when the e-mails in question were released to the public, they differed substantially from those ABC News "exclusively unearthed" in the scoop.  Soon after, the truth came out:  the reporter, ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl, was quoting not the actual e-mails, but rather summaries of the e-mails provided by a Republican source.  Despite repeated on-air claims, ABC News had never "obtained" the e-mails, and the damning "quotes" that triggered the "exclusive" turned out to be misleading.<\/p>\n