The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza thinks Republicans think the IRS's "targeting" some Tea Parties (the ones who tried to register their political activity group budgets as charities) is a "bigger story" than the Benghazi murder hearings:
Me? Duh...some days I actually write for this site, some days I merely edit it...I think both of them are big commercial-media stories youall will be reading elsewhere. I'm always underwhelmed when a blogger shares just the fragment s/he feels ethically free to gank from a news story I've already read, so I expect that you would be, too, and try to avoid posting such. I prefer to receive links to the AP, Reuters, Post, Times, Guardian, etc., stories, with your comments, especially if you have something to add (could be a similar situation from another time or place, something you've read, etc., as well as a petition or opinion). When I've posted something about a Big Story that's already getting plenty of coverage elsewhere, it's been something that a correspondent has to add to what the Post has already reported.
(Every time I take a Yougov poll they ask how many newspapers the Cat Sanctuary subscribes to. We don't subscribe to any. We help friends recycle their old newsprint as cat box liners, wood stove lighters, mulch for the orchard, and t.p. for the Sun-Mar toilet, and so we regularly get the Kingsport Times-News, Virginia Star, Kingsport Daily News, and sometimes the Bristol Herald-Courier, usually within a week of the date of publication, which is about as well as the computer center can do with the Washington Post. Newsmax and Post updates come in my e-mail, along with The Blaze, and of course I can look up Reuters, the New York Times, and other newspapers online if necessary.)
But now I'm curious. Do youall think the question of whether the IRS showed political bias is "bigger" or "smaller" than the Benghazi murder hearings? Do you think these two news stories can be compared in terms of size? Why or why not?