Yeah, thanks for the credit to my intelligence. I posted the version of the story with the least embellishment I could find.

Is "least embellishment" code for "oversimplification deleting all nuance and details that in fact at least partially contradict the "summary""? Why don't you post the four-sentence stories with the "least embellishment" that sum up Fast and Furious, IRS targeting of political organizations, NSA data acquisition on virtually all U.S. citizen communications, seizure of AP reporters home phone records, Solyndra, etc.? You'd might as well say "Nothing to see here. Move along."

Fox simply posted the AP summary.

And you apparently believe that AP is a totally unbiased media organization capable of and intent upon producing only 100% "objective" stories? Why do you believe that, and disparage other sources?

 Everything else, including the blog you linked, leaves doing the heavy lifting of actually thinking to the author of the article. Would you like me to post longwinded blog articles from liberal sources calling the GOP disrespectful in the extreme for politicizing a tragedy that was relatively more common under George W. Bush's administration and no one cared? I can.

Fine with me. Go ahead and post. They most likely would be more informative than the four sentence summary you posted above. Why not let readers decide how biased an article is? Which ambassador was killed by terrorists while on station during the Bush administration and no one cared?

I don't trust them any more than I do The Federalist blog. Most of the inflammatory stuff is designed to create page hits more than anything.

But AP would never write an article or headline that was click bait, right?

Creating page hits in itself isn't a horrible thing. The overall effect of just about everyone doing that, though, is a horrendously misinformed public with each "side" quoting its own bias as proof of its own interpretations.

Outside of basic mathematics, where is "interpretation" not a factor? You believe that that four sentence summary contains no "interpretation"? Seriously?

The Benghazi scandal is almost certainly a creation of this dynamic. Unless you trust biased internet spin more than the findings of congressional investigations. I'm sure you can find a blog that will validate that point of view.

Again, you don't think that the AP "summary" is "spin"? Are you going to have the same level of (apparently) 100% faith in the findings of another congressional investigation? Or will you claim that anything contradicting your AP summary that might be in the final report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi chaired by Trey Gowdy is somehow less valid, because it is, no doubt, "spin"? Are you claiming that the statements by American security forces that "“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d [Ambassador Steven and Sean Smith] still be alive today,” is "spin" or some deluded "interpretation"?

Here, I found one for you: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/12/02/CIA-Benghazi-Heroes-Debunk-House-Intel-Report-As-Full-Of-Inaccuracies-With-Firsthand-Account-From-The-Ground

And here is one proving that Obama is the anti-christ: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bible-code-definitively-proves-obama-antichrist

No, wait... here's proof - from the Pope himself! - that George W. Bush was the antichrist that the mainstream media completely ignored! http://www.mediahell.org/antichristbush.htm

Pick your own poison as there is plenty to chose from, tailor made to all all tastes.

Your argument is: some articles (on the internet) are biased interpretations and not fully factual, therefore no articles on the internet are factual, but are click bait spin interpretations, except the ones I link to, like the AP summary above, which is true and unbiased, because I said so.

Apparently that is what I mean, yes. Sure, why not?

You draw a remarkable number of observations in line with your own thinking from a small amount of writing on my part. S'ok, we all do.

Don't know why I bother to try and point it out here.

Other than that knowing and understanding your own bias is critical to effective activism (and why most activist movements fail to achieve much other than catharsis) and the 2nd amendment is important to me.

You either understand that politics is strategy (NOT truth) or you don't. The problem with most inane liberals is that they BELIEVE the strategic BS their party leaders are feeding them. Then they vote accordingly, which is the whole point. The same is true of the Conservatives. They key thing to understand is that the STRATEGISTS don't believe their own bullshit. The good ones don't, at any rate.

And I don't see many strategists in the 2nd amendment circles. Probably because what strategists there may be simply aren't here.

I should clarify why I bring this kind of thing up:

Preaching to the choir - which is increasingly all that either side of any debate is doing - accomplishes little other than entertainment. I was trying to point out (poorly, apparently) that this is what has been occurring with the Benghazi scandal.

If the 2nd amendment is to find more supporters and become less threatened then the target audience is people whom most of us do not agree with in general. The swing voters, essentially. There is a sizable group of people who are otherwise centrist, even liberal, that are sympathetic to protecting the second amendment. 

A strategist would find a way to take advantage of that - but I see zero evidence of that happening.

Sry - posting at the same time, mauidog. The NRA is part of the problem in this regard. I see zero evidence of them courting centrists, sympathetic voters. Instead they are piling on to the same bi-polar politics that has become our new normal. That. Is. Dangerous.

Not true exactly.  They do "preach to the choir" and do a lot of scare tactics to get funding.  That is what makes the NRA run. That is the "base".   However, they are using this funding to come out with a lot of more moderated ads targeting the "center", show these folks that the NRA is made of normal folks, and trying to educate people of their rights.  It's all over youtube.

colion noir is the new face of the NRA
tells you a lot about what they are trying to accomplish