Lame Stream Media or: How journalists failed America. The Lara Logan Story

[Rhinox]

As most of you might already known Gen. Stanley McChrystal was relieved of his command because of a story in Rolling Stone Magazine.

Usually the story ends there and something major takes up the ADHD attention span of the American public and to a degree it has. That said something came up since the story broke that has really shined a light of whats wrong with American journalists. Fortunately Matt Taibbi has brought the problem into the spotlight of why American Journalist fail so hard. Its nothing that should really suprise anyone but it's still stunning to see the shit that goes on.

Lara Logan, you suck

Lara Logan, come on down! You're the next guest on Hysterical Backstabbing Jealous Hackfest 2010!


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. According to Logan, that's sneaky — and journalists aren't supposed to be sneaky:

"What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is… That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't — I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life."

When I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, "That has to be a joke. It's sarcasm, right?" But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I'm hearing Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, "Excuse me, fellas, I know we're all having fun and all, but you're saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don't shut your mouths this very instant!" I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency? But Logan goes even further that that. See, according to Logan, not only are reporters not supposed to disclose their agendas to sources at all times, but in the case of covering the military, one isn't even supposed to have an agenda that might upset the brass! Why? Because there is an "element of trust" that you're supposed to have when you hang around the likes of a McChrystal. You cover a war commander, he's got to be able to trust that you're not going to embarrass him. Otherwise, how can he possibly feel confident that the right message will get out?

True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press?

And true, most of the major TV outlets are completely in the bag for the Pentagon, with two of them (NBC/GE and Logan's own CBS, until recently owned by Westinghouse, one of the world's largest nuclear weapons manufacturers) having operated for years as leaders in both the broadcast media and weapons-making businesses. But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon's biggest contractors?

Does the fact that the country is basically barred from seeing dead bodies on TV, or the fact that an embedded reporter in a war zone literally cannot take a shit without a military attaché at his side (I'm not joking: while embedded at Camp Liberty in Iraq, I had to be escorted from my bunk to the latrine) really provide the working general with the security and peace of mind he needs to do his job effectively?

Apparently not, according to Lara Logan. Apparently in addition to all of this, reporters must also help out these poor public relations underdogs in the Pentagon by adhering to an "unspoken agreement" not to embarrass the brass, should they tilt back a few and jam their feet into their own mouths in front of a reporter holding a microphone in front of their faces.

Then there's the part that made me really furious: Logan hinting that Hastings lied about the damaging material being on the record:

"Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me… I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just — I don't believe it."

I think the real meaning of that above quote is made clear in conjunction with this one: "There are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back."

Let me just say one thing quickly: I don't know Michael Hastings. I've never met him and he's not a friend of mine. If he cut me off in a line in an airport, I'd probably claw his eyes out like I would with anyone else. And if you think I'm being loyal to him because he works for Rolling Stone, well – let's just say my co-workers at the Stone would laugh pretty hard at that idea.

But when I read this diatribe from Logan, I felt like I'd known Hastings my whole life. Because brother, I have been there, when some would-be "reputable" journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a "reputable" journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it.

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? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it's buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.

They don't need your help, and you're giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that's really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview. God forbid some important person think you're not playing for the right team!

Meanwhile, the people who don't have the resources to find out the truth and get it out in front of the public's eyes, your readers/viewers, you're supposed to be working for them — and they're not getting your help. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? Is it worth all the bloodshed and the hatred? Who are the people running this thing, what is their agenda, and is that agenda the same thing we voted for? By the severely unlikely virtue of a drunken accident we get a tiny glimpse of an answer to some of these vital questions, but instead of cheering this as a great break for our profession, a waytago moment, one so-called reputable journalist after another lines up to protest the leak and attack the reporter for doing his job. God, do you all suck!

But yeah according to Lara Logan they have to toe the line as to not upset the pentagon with any stories if you're a journalist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcdx175bBPg

This video would be hilarious if it wasn't just sad. As little as two years ago she was touted as a trailblazer in the Journalist community "Reporting what others wouldn't".

Bitch just got scooped by a more talented Freelance reporter and she throws a hissy fit.


btw

If you need a tl;dr version or need me to bold the important things in this article its probably best you don't read. I hear a Fish got its head cut off and it came back to life in the other thread you might enjoy that more.

[Dimmauk]

My ADD kicked in at

Usually the story ends there and something major takes up the ADHD attention span

And who gives a fuck? You are surprised journalism is fail nowadays?

[Rhinox]

And who gives a fuck? You are surprised journalism is fail nowadays?

lol

If you need a tl;dr version or need me to bold the important things in this article its probably best you don't read. I hear a Fish got its head cut off and it came back to life in the other thread you might enjoy that more.

[Zoolander]

bleh, this is such a huge problem, these people don't seem to realize how important and fundamental the media is to a successful democracy. They are supposed to be a major check against the government, this stupid bitch has no idea what her responsibilities are as a journalist.

The masses should be outraged with this considering how much of a hard on they have for democracy and the founding fathers...the media is widely viewed as a pillar of a successful democracy. Of course this is not the case and has been for decades...the media has failed us time and time again, with the most recent epic failure being 9-11. All of them refused to ask the tough questions that they are supposed to ask, except for that one old lady who has now been pushed out (cant remember her name, you know who though).

[Komm Suesser Tod]

My ADD kicked in at


And who gives a fuck? You are surprised journalism is fail nowadays?

Don't you understand? Rhinox knows what is wrong with America, and nobody will listen to him. General discussion should be filled with the highest intellectual discourse, and the fact that it isn't sears the very neurons of his brain.

We should all be ashamed.

[Rhinox]

Don't you understand? Rhinox knows what is wrong with America, and nobody will listen to him. General discussion should be filled with the highest intellectual discourse, and the fact that it isn't sears the very neurons of his brain.

We should all be ashamed.

GD isn't Farc.

This will amaze you but there are people out there that like to think about stuff like this and get this... discuss it.

But I'm glad you felt insulted enough by the last few sentences to compel you to attempt to troll. s'okay

[Cantih]

Here's another good one
http://wimp.com/fareedzakaria/

[Not not Mattaru]

My ADD kicked in at


And who gives a fuck? You are surprised journalism is fail nowadays?

No one wants to hear about how bad your ADD is.

I'd add more, but the quoted bits said it better. Guy does, quite simply good journalism, and lady gets "You Mad" over being scooped. A good journalist usually should not shit on their sources, because who wants to deal with said journalist later on? But everything I have heard so far these are not sources that were asking for any sort of protection, maybe at best they assumed they would get special treatment like always?

The whole deal about people forgetting about what they are there for and just trying to be in 'the club' is so true, and for more than just journalists.

EDIT: There has been some FZ stuff that I have read and had second thoughts about, but the guy is one smart, on-target motherfucker.

[Rhinox]

bleh, this is such a huge problem, these people don't seem to realize how important and fundamental the media is to a successful democracy. They are supposed to be a major check against the government, this stupid bitch has no idea what her responsibilities are as a journalist.

The masses should be outraged with this considering how much of a hard on they have for democracy and the founding fathers...the media is widely viewed as a pillar of a successful democracy. Of course this is not the case and has been for decades...the media has failed us time and time again, with the most recent epic failure being 9-11. All of them refused to ask the tough questions that they are supposed to ask, except for that one old lady who has now been pushed out (cant remember her name, you know who though).

Helen Thomas.

Big part of the problem lies in near Corporate monopolies of every type of media where essentially someone like Rupert Murdoch can push out an agenda via his media outlets and the mass eat it up.


case in point

Fox (particularly Fox and friends) is notorious for using the term "illegal Alien" to marginalize and demonize undocumented workers.

Rupert Murdoch and Michael bloomberg recently decided to team up to push Immigration reform and when he came on curious Steve Douchey had a different term now that the boss is on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88LaJTpITEM

[Komm Suesser Tod]

GD isn't Farc.

This will amaze you but there are people out there that like to think about stuff like this and get this... discuss it.

But I'm glad you felt insulted enough by the last few sentences to compel you to attempt to troll. s'okay

And there are people who want to discuss headless fish rolling around, or how much to tip a barber, and their desire to discuss those things on a public forum shouldn't come under scrutiny from you, especially if you want to use the "people want to discuss it, so let them" rationale in regard to your own topics.

But enjoy feeling high minded, or whatever feeling it is you get from acting superior on the internet.

[Rhinox]

Another Example of how if you control the media you control the masses is non other then Silvio Berlusconi.


The guy essentially started out as a Lounge Singer worked his way up to buying a News Channel then another and another and another and before you knew he owned pretty much all significant news outlets in the country. What did he do with that power?

He ran for Italian PM and won.

Although Rupert Murdoch can't legally run for president he can pretty much influence who is a major player in American Politics.

[Rhinox]

And there are people who want to discuss headless fish rolling around, or how much to tip a barber, and their desire to discuss those things on a public forum shouldn't come under scrutiny from you, especially if you want to use the "people want to discuss it, so let them" rationale in regard to your own topics.

But enjoy feeling high minded, or whatever feeling it is you get from acting superior on the internet.

Why are you still here? Did I piss you off that bad that you felt the need to respond?

In that case I'm sorry.

Don't want you to go to bed all upset.

[Kuya]

The problem that rhinox brings up is legitimate, anyone that says otherwise is a fool.

[Dimmauk]

The problem that rhinox brings up is legitimate, anyone that says otherwise is a fool.

Its nothing new. Everyone already knows.

[Kuya]

Its nothing new. Everyone already knows.

I don't care. Go away.

[Rhinox]

Its nothing new. Everyone already knows.

What is sad is there are MILLIONS of people just like this that pretty much brush this off.

Durrr Shit happens durr

[Kuya]

This Harvard study is a good example of what this thread is referring to:

The current debate over waterboarding has spawned hundreds of newspaper articles in the last two years alone. However, waterboarding has been the subject of press attention for over a century. Examining the four newspapers with the highest daily circulation in the country, we found a significant and sudden shift in how newspapers characterized waterboarding. From the early 1930s until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002‐2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture.

In addition, the newspapers are much more likely to call waterboarding torture if a country other than the United States is the perpetrator. In The New York Times, 85.8% of articles (28 of 33) that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% (16 of 208) did so when the United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles (21 of 23) when another country was the violator, but in only 11.4% of articles (9 of 79) when the United States was the perpetrator.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/...s_students.pdf

Utter failure to protray objectivity and perspective independent of the government.

[Zoolander]

Whole thing reminds me of the 1998 SNL video, Conspiracy Theory Rock, which was then taken off of the reruns of the show. Scary to think that was 12 fucking years ago. I can't even find it on youtube, which is more than a little alarming.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6t...ock_shortfilms

[Tyche]

Is it surprising that reporters protect sources? It's going to happen and I don't think here needs to be any moral outrage over it. With that said, when a reporter throws his source under the bus, other reporters have no business standing on a soapbox to call them out, it makes them look like fucking fools.

[Tyche]

And don't fucking turn a legit thread into a 9/11 conspiracy thread.