Because the US media is in the tank for Obama and would not dare tell the truth about what happened in Libya. This malpractice of the media would not have happened if Bush had been in office.
What the media should be asking is:
1. Was there, or was there not, warning ahead of time that there would be violence against U.S. Embassies?
2. Who was given the warning? What did he or she do with the information? How far "up the chain" did it go?
3. Was the Ambassador sodomized during the time he was supposedly "being taken to the hospital?"
4. Is ritual sodomization of defeated victims a tenet of Islamic victory practices?
5. Were the Embassy Guards given live ammunition with which to defend the Embassy?
6. If the guards were not given ammunition, who gave that order?
7. Who was responsible for securing classified information, like the "Libyans Helping U.S." List?
8. Was there any heightened alert status at the Embassies in light of the date (9/11)? If not, why not?
9. How do you explain any discrepancy between the video posting date and the "outbreak of outrage" on 9/11?
But as Joe Scarborough says, the media was prevented from asking these questions because Romney chose to speak up. Seriously? How are we to believe that when reporters like CNN's Peter Hamby tweet the hyperlink to Obama's fundraising page from their official news accounts? How are we to believe that when Politico bloggers are allowed to use Politico blogs to repost Obama fundraising letters including hyperlinks to Obama's fundraising page? News for the newsmedia: the American people want answers, not continuous attacks on Romney by the supposedly nonpartisan 'news' reporters.