Lara Logan leaves the present-day journalism fold
I’m not sure that Lara Logan (she of the Superman-ish name) was ever in the fold in the first place. But if she ever was, she’s certainly left it now:
Logan herself got into trouble with CBS several years ago when she used an unreliable source for a Benghazi story that reflected poorly on the Obama administration. Aside from that, she has a history of intermittently voicing concerns that are not the party line. She also was the correspondent who was sexually assaulted and nearly killed by a large crowd while reporting from Tahrir Square in Egypt in 2011.
Regarding Logan’s Benghazi report and the aftermath, here’s an unconsciously humorous memo from a CBS executive:
On 26 November 2013, Logan was forced to take a leave of absence due to the errors in the Benghazi report. Al Ortiz, Executive Director of Standards and Practices for CBS News, wrote in a memo, “Logan made a speech in which she took a strong public position arguing that the U.S. Government was misrepresenting the threat from Al Qaeda, and urging actions that the U.S. should take in response to the Benghazi attack. From a CBS News Standards perspective, there is a conflict in taking a public position on the government’s handling of Benghazi and Al Qaeda, while continuing to report on the story.”
If taking a public position on a government action disqualified a reporter from reporting on that action, these days half (or more) of the journalists in America would be out of a job. I can get behind that—I actually think that reporters shouldn’t be speaking or writing about their personal politics. But that wouldn’t fix the larger problem, which is that they report from the skewed perspective of their personal politics.
[NOTE: More here about Logan’s previous journalistic life and times, including the Ortiz investigation of her CBS story about Benghazi.]
In light of recent events (just since New Year’s Day, in fact), this excerpt from the National Review article about Logan is almost worthy of the Babylon Bee:
“The scandal surrounding the botched Benghazi report has echoes of Rathergate: a journalist with a political predisposition to believe a story presented by a dubious source; an apparent failure to do the most basic fact-checking; and, perhaps most important, a lack of oversight from CBS brass.”
NR also highlights what might really be Logan’s sins in the view of the Left (although they weren’t bad enough then – Nov 2013 – to get her fired, they might be now):
It is not so much what they do report; it’s what they don’t report. I can usually tell when they are lying or exaggerating, but I have to do a lot of digging to find out parts of the story that are missing and other stories that are far more important than how many burgers Trump served at the WH.
Well,. at least she didn’t lie about a fake movie producer.
In addition, the CBS News review said Logan’s assertions that al Qaeda carried out the attack and controlled the hospital were not adequately attributed in her report. The report also took issue with a speech Logan gave in October of 2012, one month before starting work on the Benghazi story.
“Logan made a speech in which she took a strong public position arguing that the US Government was misrepresenting the threat from Al Qaeda, and urging actions that the US should take in response to the Benghazi attack,” the report says.
I’d say she knows more about Islamic radicalism than the people who punished her,.
“But that wouldn’t fix the larger problem, which is that they report from the skewed perspective of their personal politics.” – Neo
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/merciless-sympathy-phony-hate-crimes-mob-politics/
“The plague of phony hate crimes on college campuses, often coinciding with controversial political events, isn’t the product of coincidence. It is a strategy. Fictitious, politically charged stories of rape — Lena Dunham’s encounter with “Barry” the College Republican, the lies published by Rolling Stone, etc.—are not the products of coincidence. These things happen in clusters for a reason. That is not to say they are being centrally directed as part of some kind of well-tempered conspiracy, but rather that they are the natural result of a certain kind of politics attached to a certain worldview.
Merciless sympathy is used not only to silence doubters but to silence dissent. That is the purpose of conflating victims with political agendas. And if there aren’t any particularly useful victims around, you can always make something up.”
http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/19/15-recent-hate-crime-hoaxes-might-make-suspect-theres-trend/
“Outrage porn is not a victimless crime. Indeed, these hoaxes inspire very real violence as the mob feels compelled to take action against vilified Trump supporters. The hoaxes exacerbate tensions among Americans and sometimes destroy lives.
But they also sell newspapers and garner clicks. A new outrage story seems to appear before the last one can be debunked. So long as Americans uncritically consume outrage porn, our collective reality warps. Stoking the rising outrage of the mob may be good for business, but it’s dangerous for our country.”
https://www.wnky.com/man-accused-of-pulling-gun-on-couple-wearing-maga-hats/
“BOWLING GREEN, Ky. – A Tennessee man is charged with first-degree wanton endangerment after witnesses told police he pulled a gun on a man who was wearing Make America Great Again hat inside Sam’s Club.
… Phillips, who was wearing a veterans cap, told police he made the gesture at the man and a woman with him because of the MAGA hats they were wearing, according to his citation.”
“But that wouldn’t fix the larger problem, which is that they report from the skewed perspective of their personal politics.”
The media long ago turned into Pravda for the democrats. That was why I stopped taking the Washington post, the journalists were just democrat apparatchiks. There was no difference between the front pages and the editorial pages.
Good for Lara Logan.
Her clothing seems inappropriate for a professional interview. Just sayin’.
She’s on a RADIO show Tom. A radio show.
And besides, I’m a big fan of cleavage.
Now we know that Logan was right, and Ortiz was fatally wrong. Also, the Mediterranean is still processing (“waterboarding”) the collateral damage from our poorly staffed social justice adventures in Libya and elsewhere.
I’m a big fan of cleavage.
Logan is feminine female. She was raped. She survived and prospers. She is fully clothed and sexy.
GV – “I’m a big fan of cleavage.”
Yeah…but are you a fan of big cleavage?
;-D
Clevage does draw the straight male eye, i assume a woman with large clevage seeks to draw attention to her clevage. It distracts and attempts to make her words more attractive. Missus parker has peitite tatas, they have withstood the ravages of gravity and remained pert and beautiful, the pink nipples are a beautiful feature. My petite, no longer ginger sweety remains beautiful. The silver hair with a few streaks of red is also beautiful. Love the one you are with.
That is not to say they are being centrally directed as part of some kind of well-tempered conspiracy
People who still believe in the moon landing religion aren’t qualified to be talking about what they think is a well tempered or not conspiracy… they have no clue, as always.
I respect your opinion.
On the other hand, one can both (i) appreciate the information and analysis delivered by the messenger, and (ii) enjoy the delivery as well.
For me, Ms. Logan’s attire was well within the margins of propriety.
Obviously the viewers are easily distracted. No wonder they lost the war.
(Lara Logan is on FOX News as I’m writing this comment.)
In responding to Tom, Gerard made the following comments:
In the Mike Drop interview, Lara Logan clearly knew she was being recorded on video. And for fans like Gerard and me, she purposely angled her body to face directly toward the camera, while her head was turned slightly left for her to see Mike.
Lara, all I gotta say, to misquote the title of Bob Hope’s old theme song is, “thanks for the mammaries.”
Logan had to know, when she shoehorned herself into that particular dress, that pushing those Ta Tas out there like that–to be so up front and visible–had to be a huge distraction for any guy, and she knew her statements were being filmed.
I think that the appearance of Lara’s “girls” reduced the effectiveness of the points she was making, because how she was dressed made her seem less serious in making them.
There were two messages, two focuses of interest here–her chest, and her critique of the media–when there should have been only one, her critique; her chest diverted attention from and lessened the impact of her critique.
P.S. Some pictures of Logan on the Internet show her with what appears to be a much smaller chest, so I wonder if she has had some “work done.”
The full 3 hours 40 minutes interview is riveting. The mention of the state of journalism is a footnote compared to the breadth of biographical information she shares.