In the sea of news coverage yesterday, I’ve scanned and scanned. It seems as if the American people have been flooded with a barrage of words from the liberal media to describe yesterday’s Benghazi hearing to include (but not limited to): Partisan. Divisive. Overly critical. Petty. A joke. Embarrassing. A witchhunt. An “endurance contest”.

Our friends at the liberal media outlets continue to laser focus on the lack of professionalism on behalf of the committee itself and the partisan narrative. Here’s a perfect specimen of what I’m talking about courtesy of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow:

This is what we’re seeing. And this, is what we are reading:

Headlines:

CNN: “Marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed”

MSNBC: “Clinton emerges unscathed as GOP-led Benghazi hearing falls flat”

Huffington Post: “Trey Gowdy And His GOP Colleagues Embarrassed Themselves”

Salon: “Elijah Cummings, superstar”

The New York Times: “A Hearing, and a House, as Divided as the Country Watching It”

Politico: Clinton survives 11-hour Benghazi grilling: The former secretary of state makes few mistakes in a fiery, marathon hearing.

These are just a few headlines that have appeared over the past 24 hours. I am not going into the specific technicalities of the hearing questions here on behalf of the committee. Nor am I doing to perform an in-depth analysis of whether or not the questions asked were “petty” and “insignificant” and whether the “poor” former Secretary of State was part of a Republican witchhunt and how she has been painted as a liar by the GOP. Not getting into it. I’m not going to analyze Hillary’s cackling at the fact that she was “alone” that evening or how she asked an individual at the hearing (supposedly off mic) if he was attending the Katy Perry concert in honor of her campaign this upcoming weekend. While these actions may not be deemed as appropriate behavior of a former Secretary of State/future Presidential nominee at a hearing as serious as this, I think the reason most of us feel so passionately about Benghazi is the death of four Americans: Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

“Madame Secretary, I understand some people – frankly in both parties -have suggested this investigation is about you. Let me assure you it is not. And let me assure you why it is not. This work is about something much more important than any single person. It is about four U.S. government workers, including our Ambassador, murdered by terrorists on foreign soil. It is about what happened before, during, and after the attacks that killed these four men. It is about what this country owes those who risk their lives to serve it. It is about the fundamental obligation of our government to tell the truth – always – to the American people. Not a single member of this Committee signed up for an investigation into you or your email system. We signed up because we wanted to honor the service and sacrifice of 4 people sent to a foreign land to represent us – who were killed – and do everything we can to prevent it from happening to others.”-Trey Gowdy

Did you all hear that? Oh talking heads who define themselves as “Democrats” in our media circusit is not about Hillary. Put any politician in her place as Secretary of State on September 11, 2012, who did the same exact thing, there still would be questions. It is not an attack on Hillary because she is a woman. She’s a self-proclaimed feminist, for crying out loud-and as a feminist-she doesn’t need anyone’s help and certainly does not need to be painted as the damsel in distress or a victim here. And by-the-way, media geniuses, you DO need to make up your minds. Was it a partisan witchhunt or was Clinton victorious? Pick a story and stick with it. And,no. It is not about division. Why is it always about division with you folks? To call the trial “petty” and a “joke” is divisive. To do so is also throwing utter disrespect at these four men and their families. And furthermore to do so to advance a political agenda via the supposed “unbiased” media is also as lowdown and dirty as a lying politician on either side of the fence.

But by all means, if journalists believe the narrative, they should go forth and write a compelling story or present that equally compelling argument. They should continue to focus on the divisiveness and the partisan drivel and paint Hillary a hero to Americans. That is, after all, what they have been spoon-fed to believe and to shovel into the heads of free thinkers across our nation. And for added “oomph”, they should go ahead and call the individuals who sought after truthful answers in a hearing that actually questioned the deaths of these innocent Americans “unprofessional” and “embarrassing.”

What difference do the headlines make? I’d say there’s quite the disparity and this illustrates just where the disconnect is.