Some think that the Benghazi conspiracy/cover-up/scandal/whatever-it-is doesn’t get as much press as you’d think a terrorist attack on an American embassy would, but why? According to Rush Limbaugh, because there’s “no sex” in it.
All of the right ingredients are there in the Benghazi story: American martyrs, a reasonably clear enemy, political intrigue, and a bunch of unanswered questions. Whatever the so-called “truth” in the story really is, there are definitely enough pieces not there in the narrative to give it a second look, even if doing so allows you to arrive to a reasonable conclusion as it stands.
But still, some folks really think we ought to care more about this than we do. That is to say, we shouldn’t care more than we already do, but the media should care more than they already do. If we want to get really reductive, the left-leaning media should care more about it that it does.
So why doesn’t it? Right-leaning media might say that their opponents on the left are trying to shield Hillary Clinton from any backlash so she can run an un-tarnished presidential campaign in 2016 (Hils is pretty popular). Others think the “cover-up” is a media “apology tour” for President Obama whose policies have been pretty polarizing.
For controversial radio host Rush Limbaugh, the explanation is simpler than all of that. The media won’t touch Benghazi because it’s just not a very sexy story.
“You know the thing about Benghazi?” Limbaugh bloviated. “There’s no sex in it.”
He illustrated his point by comparing the story to the recent media focus on the Jodi Arias trial and the Amanda Knox case.
“We had sex with Jodi Arias. We had sex with the Castro brothers in Cleveland. We had sex with Amanda Knox. There’s no sex in Benghazi. No wonder it’s not interesting to people.”
Are you following the Benghazi story? Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that it’s not interesting due to a lack of sex? Listen below, via Mediaite: