Last week’s episode of 60 Minutes included a segment about the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. Among other press this week, it has been followed with a call by Senator Lindsey Graham for access to “talk to the people who were in Benghazi independent of the administration.” In comparing this with the account of the Berlin blockade from Seib (Chapter 3, Monday’s reading) it is telling to look at the different levels of access to information for events abroad.

The events and aftermath around Benghazi have shown how communication technologies have adjusted the ways that government and media respond to crises. Reports on TV were ongoing as the events happened, not three days later. President Obama did not go sailing and Secretary Clinton did not attend a baseball game that evening. However, reports at the time were mixed in with events around the protests in Egypt and we still are unclear as to what Obama, Clinton, and other administration officials knew, and when they knew it.

It seems that the 60 Minutes report, and subsequent discourse about the report itself (Google 60 Minutes Benghazi and see what comes up), shows that even with social media and the capability of an internet connection in a backpack, the public are still unable to receive timely and accurate information. Even one year after the event, the discourse is still heavily divided.

• 60 Minutes Report- http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157981n
• Lindsey Graham’s call for access to witnesses- http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/31/senator-lindsey-graham-pushes-for-answers-on-benghazi/

In one sense, we can look at the government’s response as a delaying tactic. Instead of reacting and allowing the public to affect its own response, the administration hinted that this was a spontaneous attack, like the protests in Cairo that same day. Clinton and Obama stressed the importance to temper reactions and to separate those that were attacking the US consulate from the Islamic religion in general. Though they had much more information than the Kennedy team did in1961, and the media demanded an immediate response, very little accurate information came out at the time. In fact, the question as to whether the administration responded in time still “linger[s].” In the segment, the reporter asks,  “Why no larger military response ever crossed the border into Libya?”

In looking at the press coverage at the time, and the divided discourse since, what does the Benghazi attack signify as to the connections between the government, media, and the public? Did the Obama administration address things any differently than the Kennedy administration did? I would argue that in some ways they both stalled their reactions and waited for more detailed and accurate information to come in prior to ordering any immediate response. Is this a sign that even with faster communication technology, our government is still operating in a slower time frame than might be expected?