If you genuinely believe the CIA thought this was a result of a documentary then I'm not really sure what to say to you. Either you're an idiot, or the CIA needs to be shut down for complete and utter intelligence failure.

The emails released are not from the day of the attack, nor are they of the days following, they are from Sept. 14th and 15th. Do you even know what you're talking about? They are publicly available.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-emails/white-house-benghazi-emails.pdf

Educate yourself.

How did the information about a protest come from the CIA if the CIA was getting its information from news reports? Wouldn't it be, "The CIA had no information and didn't seem very interested in obtaining any, so they just read the news and said, 'Yeah. That.'" And... is the CIA really this worthless?

Odd that some people - like Greg Hicks - knew almost immediately who was involved in the attack and others, including the Central Intelligence Agency apparently, didn't.

I don't think anybody is going to argue that MSNBC is unbiased, so extrapolating from one media outlet to the media market in general is erroneous. I personally don't watch either network, so I don't really know how much each network focuses on news vs. editorial style coverage . I mean.......this is the chart  you should be posting, which does much less to support your point (and is from the same study), especially given how campaign coverage changed over the course of the election season. I don't think anyone is going to disagree that there are partisan news sources, especially when you look at the huge amount of sources available today....the question is whether there is systematic bias.

I don't know if you have access to the articles, but here are the citations:

Aday S. 2010. Chasing the bad news: an analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan war coverage on NBC and Fox News Channel. J. Commun. 60:144–64.

Banning S, Coleman R. 2009. Louder than words: a content analysis of presidential candidates’ televised nonverbal communication. Visual Commun. Q. 16:4–17.

Grabe ME, Bucy EP. 2009. Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press.

The first article is just about more positive coverage of the war, which would have benefitted the Republicans. The other two are more explicitly about bias. There were a couple other citations, but they seemed questionable. Just to be clear, I'm pretty much agnostic on this question. I honestly think the research on this question needs a lot of work.

Oh, you mean like the failure on WMDs in Iraq? The failure to prevent 9/11? Anyone asked for the CIA to be shut down for either of those? 

 “[t]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex.” That's what the CIA says in the emails 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/benghazi-emails-talking-points-changed-state-depts-request/story?id=19187137#.UZV_i7XU-VM

All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo." In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA. What did get removed was the CIA's saying that it believed Ansar al-Sharia took part in the attack and that the CIA had warned of the terror threat.

Educate yourself. 

Just to help you out, the media reporting that the CIA led the charge is already back pedaling from their analysis of the Emails.  It now appears from the emails the the original talking points from the CIA never mentioned the video but referenced not only the al Qaeda inspired groups but also the mention of the previous attacks in Libya.  The state department took the lead in removing theses specific phrases and that is very clear from the emails, and the motive to remove these phrases was also very clear as the state department did not want congress using the knowledge that there had been warnings of attacks.  

The post did a horrible job of analysis on the emails and again took direction from the administration that there is no there there. 

Sadly this was a lie that never had to be and all for the sake of an election that they probably still would have won.

Another interesting point to bring up. In the 100 pages not a single mention of a video? Yet the next day the video is front and center as the cause of the attack. Where did this talking point come from? Obviously not the CIA, it had to come from either tommy or Victoria after the points were cleared.

Do you think there can be an objective media in regard to politics, despite an overwhelming left bias per individual?

A bit different between getting information post hoc as opposed to speculating on WMDs and rather ambiguous information about 9/11. You act like the intel was that there would be planes smashing into the twin towers on 9/11/2001 - that wasn't even remotely close to the case. Not relevant to this matter though. Stay on topic.

Again, you're still posting articles about the emails FROM 3 DAYS LATER. 

The relevant emails from contemporary intel are not released and probably never will be. These emails aren't about discussing the attack, they are about talking points. Go read them - nothing but unclassified bullet points, i.e. sheltering the public from what actually happened.

Educate yourself.

 “[t]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex.”

I literally quoted from the CIA in the emails. They don't mention the video, they mention a protest inspired by the protest in Cairo. Guess what that Cairo protest was about? The video. 

You keep mentioning 3 DAYS LATER as if that changes what the content of the CIA emails is.

So 3 days later the CIA was lying about the protest for talking points? If the information they believed 3 days later included the idea that there was a violent protest, what makes you think the original intelligence didn't suggest the same thing? Once again, pointing out to you that the protest is being mentioned by the CIA. Do you have any proof that the administration made up the idea of the protest? (which, again, is mentioned by the CIA) 

Biggest terrorist attack in history, warnings of Al Qaeda attacks and a history of them, but that is irrelevant for the CIA to figure out? WMD information that led to a war where 5000 americans died and how many Iraqis? That is irrelevant? Tell me out of these 3 CIA mistakes of intelligence which one cost more? Which is a bigger intelligence failure?