"I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered."

The words say he would consider it delusional to state that Benghazi was covered too much. To make the headline true, there would have to be a "not" between "have" and "covered."

Was that his intention? I don't know. But the literal meaning of the quote would suggest that he thinks it was covered appropriately.

Getting an actual criticism out there but with immediate walk back for job security reasons.

"Henry also emphasized that it was an important story to cover since four Americans were killed and there’s still some mystery about what the administration knew and when they knew about the attack, and he asserted that other news outlets (ahem, MSNBC, he’s looking at you) have under-covered the story." He used the tried and true Watergate phrasing "what the administration (President in Watergate) knew and when they knew..." Keep throwing the crap against the wall FAUX network. It's still not sticking.

The other news outlets haven't under-covered the story because there's no mysterious intrigue going on at the White House or State Department about it to cover.

I would flip to Fox News from time to time just to confirm my notion that they were talking about Benghazi yet again. I'd say that 90% of the time Benghazi was the topic being covered, the other 10% of the time was split between pro-gold investment commercials and Hannity throwing footballs on the "Great Great Great American Panel" segment of his crappy show.