What The Washington Post Isn’t Telling You About #Benghazi

Today the Washington Post decided to dig into just who it is that cares about the horrifying failure of leadership that lead to the murders of 4 American including an ambassador. To everybody’s surprise they came to the conclusion that only stupid neo-conservative losers care about such an unimportant story. I know, shocker.

By pointing to an analysis done by something called DemographicsPro the Post claimed that only “Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers” are actually tweeting in the #Benghazi hashtag. Of course, in post speak, that means “brain dead conservative haters”. Now, I’m not disputing that the data points the Post used are in the report but why don’t we check out a couple of data points the Post decided to leave out of their little article.

1. While Wapo points out that people who use #Benghazi like Chick-Fil-A most they somehow forgot to mention that the report states Starbucks is the #3 most popular brand among the same people. Weird, huh?
2. For some reason the Washington Post didn’t bother to mention that California is the state with the most tweets about #Benghazi according to the report they used.
3. They also didn’t mention that New York City and Washington DC are the two towns tweeting the most about #Benghazi.
4. There’s no mention of the fact that the #2 occupation among #Benghazi tweeters is listed as “Military” and the #4 occupation is listed as “Students”. Wonder why…
5. According to the report used by the post, whose methodology is beyond vague, 52% of people tweeting about #Benghazi are Jewish. Oddly, this wasn’t mentioned by the post either.
6. Among the most popular accounts that people who tweet about #Benghazi is none other than the Washington Post itself. Yet, they don’t bother to tell people that.

Why, it’s almost as though the Washington Post was simply cherry picking data to forward their little liberal narrative on the Benghazi scandal. “See everybody, it’s just those wingnut neocons who care about this complete non-scandal”. Sadly for them, their narrative is easily debunked using their own source material.