Scandals? What scandals?

Not sure whether it's just that I've not being paying close enough attention, but there does seem to be some bias in the media. Not the kind Fox "News" whines on about in its characteristically hypocritical way, but a fact free myopia, a propensity to chase after a shiny object; even when the object isn't actually shiny.

All the news channels have been talking about the three 'scandals' swirling about the current administration. What exactly makes them scandals - apart from the fact the the media likes a scandal and seems to have been taken for (another) ride by the politicians?

IRS

This is the most likely candidate for something that might qualify as a 'scandal', and a public inquiry to establish what went on is certainly in order. However, it is premature to suggest - as of course Fox routinely insinuates - that the White House ordered political targeting of right-wing groups. And there is another point the media (and many Democrats) seem to have forgotten, which is that it was the Republican money laundering machine spearheaded by Karl Rove that invented the shenanigans of exploiting 501c(3) 'social welfare' organizations as a means of hiding the names of their political fund raising donors. Have they all forgotten Stephen Colbert's ground-breaking exposé into the way in which the tax code can be misused for political ends? If I were looking for clues of this kind of abuse of the tax system, I'd start by looking for links to Karl Rove; which seems to me to be pretty much what the IRS did. For the 'outraged' right to suggest that the IRS be even handed is a bit like telling the police raid everyone's homes, even though only a few have bags in the yard label 'swag'. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that seems to be a good place to start duck hunting.

Subpoena of journalists' telephone records

Not clear to me how this is a 'scandal' when warrant-less wire tapping wasn't. At least a judicial process was followed. And the same hypocrites who exposed Valerie Plame's identity as an employee of the CIA for blatantly political ends, simultaneously defended Bush/Cheney's preposterous assertions of national security to cover their administrations political backsides, and cheered when leakers were vigorously pursued, are now saying that this administration is out of order for trying to prevent the press revealing information that could compromise national security? Why are we calling it a scandal? I fear it may be because Fox started banging the drum and the other outlets were afraid of being accused of bias for not getting on the band wagon. Of course it's interesting that journalists are upset when their phone records are legally obtained, but not when citizens phones are listened to without a warrant.

Benghazi

Since day one, this has never been a scandal. How it got that label is a remarkable testimony to Fox' and the House Republicans' ability to make something out of nothing for political gain. That Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other people died is a tragedy. Stevens was new to the post and by all accounts doing a fantastic job reaching out to the Libyan people. But what makes this a scandal rather than a tragedy? When boiled down to their main themes, the accusations are:

1) That the State Department ignored information that a terrorist attack was in preparation (much like Bush, Cheney and Rice were ignorant of what was about to happen before 911), and did not provide adequate security for the Ambassador and his staff.

2) That the administration's military response, once the attack was underway, was inept and inadequate; this despite the fact the military top brass (whose pronouncements are taken as gospel by Fox "News" - that is until they no longer support Fox's political narrative) and the (Republican) Secretary of Defense  all explained patiently that everything that could reasonably have been done in the circumstances was done.¹

3) That there was a 'cover-up' after the event. The 'cover-up' is really about two things; the initial lack of information during and immediately after the attack, when the spontaneous protest explanation appeared plausible and the later attempts by the administration to avoid labeling the incident an act of terror. The allegedly scandalous point here is the latter; when it was becoming clearer that the attack was organized and premeditated, why did the administration ask Susan Rice to propagate spontaneous protest explanation? There seem to be two reasons: first, as the Republicans suggest, it was to avoid disrupting the Democratic narrative that they had been successful in the 'war on terror' symbolized in particular by the finding and killing of ABL. But as manipulative as this seems, those making the accusation should look in the mirror, since they too are spinning the truth for politic gain; and that, regrettably, is politics. The second explanation (and the two aren't mutually exclusive) is that this portrayal of events is consistent with this administration's efforts to avoid inflaming anti-American sentiment provoked by labeling every act of violence an act of terror. This stance (with which, not surprisingly, I agree) was re-articulated in the President's recent speech on use of UAVs (drones).

So, three not-really-scandals that the media has been complicit in keeping on the boil. That Fox "News" is up there I understand; but the so called serious media? Why are they drinking the cool-aid too?

^1. In Britain many years ago, the knee-jerk reaction to activities the brainless right (a sub-class of the right) took exception to was "Nuke the bastards". I admit to being a little surprised not to hear that any more, at least no since' I've been living in the US. One explanation might be that the line is uttered only by those for whom it's really not a realistic option. When you do control a boat load of hydrogen bombs, and 'nuking the bastards' really is an option, it's no longer a joking matter.