Who wants to bet that you wont find this story displayed prominently on the front pages of the Concord Monitor, Portsmouth Herald, Keene Sentinel, in Laconia, Dover, Conway, or at the Nashua Telegraph? Obama IRS hides emails on Scandal – Media Hides Scandal (to Protect Democrat President).
But here we have a former senior official from the IRS who deliberately harassed hundreds of conservatives groups. She has taken the 5th Amendment—why? What sort of self-incrimination is she worried about? A look through her emails would have the answer. But those emails are, according to the IRS, unavailable because of a hard disk failure. Do you believe that? Do you believe that that the agency charged with tax gathering for the United States does not have multiple back ups of its business correspondence? Do you? Imagine what the IRS would have to say to a (conservative) business it decided to audit if a response for electronic records was met with, “Gosh darn, we had a hard disk failure, and they’re just plum gone.” Imagine. And why have there not been instant calls for the data recovery folks to get involved? Why? The public, I’d wager, would find all this keenly interesting—if only the people charged with reporting the news would tell them about it.
I think we’ll cover the story about the NH Media not covering the story.
Imagine, if you will, a search of the Concord Monitor’s online presence if George Bush’s IRS was in the midst of an ideological targeting sandal and the person fingered as knowing the most about it had not only refused to testify but their emails suddenly went missing?
I think that would be news worthy. I think voters in New Hampshire would deserve to know if a party leader or president, or some member of is administrations, were obstructing, or appeared to be obstructing an investigation. No one in the NH Media would seem to agree with me.
A search of IRS on the Concord Monitor Web site produces nothing about this story. A search for Lois Lerner not only results in nothing about this story, you have to go back to March 5th for a story about how she refuses to testify.
Finger on the pulse. That’s the Concord Monitor.
At the Nashua Telegraph the only mentions of the IRS are from syndicated columnists like Mona Charon and George Will, and as generalizations in the context of a crowd of scandals plaguing the White House. Lois Lerner is a stranger to the Telegraph. Like the Monitor they have a March 5th mention, and George Will calls her out in his March 9th syndicated column.
The Keene Sentinel appears to know that there is something called the IRS, but Lois Lerner is just a name related to some debate between two guys named Issa and Cummings–last reported circa March 7.
The Portsmouth Herald (Seacoast Online), has little heralding on the IRS. Opinion pieces, you know, letter to the editor, none that mention the IRS or a scandal in the title. Lois Lerner is also a stranger to the Herald and Seacoast Online; nothing but opinion, none of it headlining Lerner, and no “news” about her unless you go back to May (again) and only to state that she’s not talking.
New Hampshire citizens looking to WMUR for a story about Lois Lerner’s missing emails will be disappointed. A search for “IRS” generates a lot of personal interest stories on interacting with the agency but there is only one link on the first page search results any kind of scandal, and only that some lawmakers want to investigate the IRS to see if it may have been targeting groups based on a political ideology, back in May… 2013.
A Search for ‘Lois Lerner’ produces two results from May of this year but they were not about her.
Searches for “Missing Email” produced zero results. “Lerner Email” also produced no results.
And no, the Union Leader is not covering the story either, if an internet search of their site is any indication. Not even a tiny bit.
It is important to note with this scandal, as with most in recent years, that the President has no interest in them either. Not only has he no interest, his administration has gone out of its way to impede them. The only reason to do that, it seems to me, is to keep someone from uncovering evidence that points to the person impeding the investigation. This means that the Obama Administrations disinterest, the spin by the Democrat party and its associated mouth pieces, the feigned outrage at any effort to find the truth, are all to protect Obama or those close to him.
Given the disinterest by local outlets styling themselves as members of the people’s watchdog media, we can only assume that the people they are watching out for are in the Democrat party, or connected to the current administration.
Hiding intimidation tactics and making evidence of it disappear is neither evidence of hiding wrong-doing, or wrong-doing in itself, not to mention beyond the pale of believability if you happen to be employed by the New Hampshire mdia.