NYT Tries to Bury Benghazi Hearings Only to Have Its Un-Journalistic Mischief Dug Up By Its Own In-House Ombudsman

That's what happens when you stop doing your job and work as an unpaid flack for Barack Obama:

Amid concerns that some in the mainstream media are downplaying the Libya terror attack, The New York Times' public editor scolded The Grey Lady this week for burying its coverage of the first congressional hearing on the deadly assault.  

The pointed rebuke from Margaret Sullivan, whose job is to represent the interests of Times readers, said the hearing story "belonged on The Times's front page."  

Instead, it was on A3 -- while other major papers like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post put it on the cover Thursday.  

"I can't think of many journalistic subjects that are more important right now, or more deserving of aggressive reporting," Sullivan wrote, adding that readers wrote to her "in dismay" about the apparent downplaying.

The Times' editors claimed they had a perfectly good reason for burying the news. They

explained to Sullivan that they thought the hearing was politicized, and that's why they tucked coverage inside. Meanwhile, stories on Lance Armstrong and other topics made their way to the front page.

"Politicized." That's Left-speak for "not going to do our guy a whit of good."