Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: 'We were wrong': CBS's Lara Logan apologizes for Benghazi report [View all]Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)36. "When Lara Logan Trashed Michael Hastings"
http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2013/11/when-lara-logan-trashed-michael-hastings.html
When Lara Logan Trashed Michael Hastings
Worth re-visiting the McChrystal backlash in light of, you know. Matt Taibbi covered it in Rolling Stone in 2011 in one of his classics. Excerpt:
http://m.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/lara-logan-you-suck-20100628
I thought I'd seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Times column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN's "Reliable Sources" program, agreeing that the Rolling Stone reporter violated an "unspoken agreement" that journalists are not supposed to "embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter."
Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn't mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan. Here's CBS's chief foreign correspondent saying out loud on TV that when the man running a war that's killing thousands of young men and women every year steps on his own dick in front of a journalist, that journalist is supposed to eat the story so as not to embarrass the flag. And the part that really gets me is Logan bitching about how Hastings was dishonest to use human warmth and charm to build up enough of a rapport with his sources that they felt comfortable running their mouths off in front of him....
As to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard?
When Lara Logan Trashed Michael Hastings
Worth re-visiting the McChrystal backlash in light of, you know. Matt Taibbi covered it in Rolling Stone in 2011 in one of his classics. Excerpt:
http://m.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/lara-logan-you-suck-20100628
I thought I'd seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Times column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN's "Reliable Sources" program, agreeing that the Rolling Stone reporter violated an "unspoken agreement" that journalists are not supposed to "embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter."
Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn't mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan. Here's CBS's chief foreign correspondent saying out loud on TV that when the man running a war that's killing thousands of young men and women every year steps on his own dick in front of a journalist, that journalist is supposed to eat the story so as not to embarrass the flag. And the part that really gets me is Logan bitching about how Hastings was dishonest to use human warmth and charm to build up enough of a rapport with his sources that they felt comfortable running their mouths off in front of him....
As to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
176 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Stupid too; many of us not claiming to be journalists knew you were wrong before you aired it.
Scuba
Nov 2013
#1
That's probably a great idea. "how misinformation and couple lies- can build a fake crisis"
Sunlei
Nov 2013
#141
you'd think these "muckrakers" would have learned after BushCo's "valid" source, Chalabi
wordpix
Nov 2013
#126
If she did any work at all on this, she must have known beforehand it was a pack of lies
Berlum
Nov 2013
#164
Memories are short. Logan reported fearlessly from Iraq and was gang raped in Egypt.
Rose Siding
Nov 2013
#109
Looks like Sen. Lindsey Graham’s office is going to need a new voicemail message
Snake Plissken
Nov 2013
#5
Sometimes horses realize that they are a lot stronger then the people around them ....
Botany
Nov 2013
#29
Apologizing on a morning show is one thing, are they/is she going to devote another
winterpark
Nov 2013
#16
Yes, she should be history, and everyone associated with her crap segment should be scrutinized. n/t
MerryBlooms
Nov 2013
#98
Click on the photo for a drop down window and it will give you the link. Let me know if that works.
freshwest
Nov 2013
#52
Did you compress the sentence? It shows up as an underlined link and a sentence. The link won't work
freshwest
Nov 2013
#111
That's what I have. I found it through google images. If DU didn't automatically convert links to
freshwest
Nov 2013
#158
Marcy Wheeler: @emptywheel: Just to remind, it's Cheney flack Mary Matalin's imprint which published
Hissyspit
Nov 2013
#40
How did the 60 minutes story contradict the account provided by the State Dept.
Hamlette
Nov 2013
#50
so, Lindsay is pissed because the WH closed the investigation w/o talking to the "witnesses"
Hamlette
Nov 2013
#65
it's hard to take this seriously when the right didn't exactly hold Baby Bush's feet to the fire for
yurbud
Nov 2013
#58
a lot of people lie on TV interviews (like republicans), why is it the journalists fault?
Sunlei
Nov 2013
#61
journalists are supposed to investigate their sources first before pronouncing them credible
wordpix
Nov 2013
#130
the source was his book and he was stationed there. He lied to the journalist (and the public)
Sunlei
Nov 2013
#139
On their website, right after I asked the question, it was buried on the right side list of
SleeplessinSoCal
Nov 2013
#153
I hear you. That was just their website though. I still wonder what kind of coverage their
SleeplessinSoCal
Nov 2013
#160
Next up on 60 Minutes: How the Grand Canyon was formed by Paul Bunyan dragging his ax...
Spitfire of ATJ
Nov 2013
#81
CBS going to do less retraction than This American Life which did an entire show retracting
Paulie
Nov 2013
#90
Well if you werent in such a hurry to win ratings by screwing the president..
Vietnameravet
Nov 2013
#106
If Darrel Issa was dismissed from his committee chair and the next one told there would
Thinkingabout
Nov 2013
#122
Some news organisations are blending traditional journalism with "outside sources".
mwooldri
Nov 2013
#143
I don't understand why this "Dylan Davies" isn't the target of intense scrutiny now?
Sunlei
Nov 2013
#140
No, Lara, a mistake is when you accidentally hit Reply All or wash a red sock in your whites.
tanyev
Nov 2013
#142
Its simple economics, big business is wasting advertising dollars on MSM that caters to....
Rebellious Republican
Nov 2013
#155