|
|
Post by davo on Nov 13, 2013 14:28:47 GMT -5
a story that blew up in CBS's face, he was forced to resign and right wingers everywhere celebrated long and hard. When a young, pretty woman, who leans to the right, blew a story, well, silence. Such right wing hypocrisy on display, here, yet again. How has CBS not fired this woman yet?“60 Minutes” has apologized and corrected its recent report on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, which was based in large part on an elaborate fabrication cooked up by a fame-hungry source with a book to sell. Except that CBS’s apology didn’t come with an explanation of how and why it failed to vet the story of defense contractor and fabulist Dylan Davies. The story’s lead reporter, Lara Logan, offered a 90-second correction at the close of last Sunday’s show. The correction did more to obscure her screw-up than to explain it. The question now is, when, exactly, will CBS be firing Logan? This is a bad and dumb way to cover a story like Benghazi. As Amy Davidson says: “Those military and diplomatic questions deserve better answers, ones about policy choices rather than half-discerned conspiracies.” Unfortunately our mass media press is not capable of explaining the world as anything but a simplistic morality tale of good versus bad and strength versus weakness. (That’s Logan’s entire original report, basically: bad guys attack because White House weak! Strong man say why we not act stronger like him?) Still: Lara Logan has made an egregious journalistic error. She had a rather obvious agenda. Her apology was laughably inadequate. CBS clearly expects to just hurry past this with a quick “sorry” and no internal review. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post helpfully fact-checked “60 Minutes” for CBS, but now that the story’s been retracted, there’s no reason for it to continue making headlines unless people keep making a fuss about it. In 2004, the fuss was massive and sustained. It would be nice to see the rest of the mass media take as much of an interest in this fiasco as they did in that one, until some heads roll. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 17:22:50 GMT -5
If anything, Ms. Logan did Obama a favor.
|
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 13, 2013 17:29:08 GMT -5
How about another angle, if we are supposed to call for her firing for her missinformation on the air, how about you call for Obama, Hillary, and Rice to be fired for their lies about Bengazi as well, how is the hypocrisy resting on your shoulders?
|
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 13, 2013 17:32:47 GMT -5
If anything, Ms. Logan did Obama a favor. And barry ain't getting very many of them these days......the handicap is, however, shaping up nicely. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 13, 2013 17:35:00 GMT -5
If CBS failed to adequately fact check the matter then the responsible individuals should be fired. Reporters that aren't truthful are valueless. Sort of like leaders that aren't truthful. So, davo, you on the impeachment bus? Obama has certainly lied about his signature health care failure enough to warrant it, by your standard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 17:38:46 GMT -5
Actually, Obama is worse. They fact checked the matter and then lied anyways.
That said, an introduction of standards probably ended the topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 17:38:52 GMT -5
How about another angle, if we are supposed to call for her firing for her missinformation on the air, how about you call for Obama, Hillary, and Rice to be fired for their lies about Bengazi as well, how is the hypocrisy resting on your shoulders? Funny I had the same thought! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 17:46:32 GMT -5
How about another angle, if we are supposed to call for her firing for her missinformation on the air, how about you call for Obama, Hillary, and Rice to be fired for their lies about Bengazi as well, how is the hypocrisy resting on your shoulders? Funny I had the same thought! Ditto, Mom. Funny, how the lies apply only to one side of the aisle, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 17:50:33 GMT -5
paradigm - pretty much. Not only that but the attack on Benghazi was NOT as a result of a you tube video.
|
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 13, 2013 17:56:56 GMT -5
WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 17:59:36 GMT -5
paradigm - pretty much. Not only that but the attack on Benghazi was NOT as a result of a you tube video. The attack WAS the result of the total incompetence of the State Department. Gee, for the life of me, I can't recall the name of the Secretary of State at that time, can you, Mom?   |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 13, 2013 18:10:25 GMT -5
a story that blew up in CBS's face, he was forced to resign and right wingers everywhere celebrated long and hard. When a young, pretty woman, who leans to the right, blew a story, well, silence. Such right wing hypocrisy on display, here, yet again. How has CBS not fired this woman yet?“60 Minutes” has apologized and corrected its recent report on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, which was based in large part on an elaborate fabrication cooked up by a fame-hungry source with a book to sell. Except that CBS’s apology didn’t come with an explanation of how and why it failed to vet the story of defense contractor and fabulist Dylan Davies. The story’s lead reporter, Lara Logan, offered a 90-second correction at the close of last Sunday’s show. The correction did more to obscure her screw-up than to explain it. The question now is, when, exactly, will CBS be firing Logan? This is a bad and dumb way to cover a story like Benghazi. As Amy Davidson says: “Those military and diplomatic questions deserve better answers, ones about policy choices rather than half-discerned conspiracies.” Unfortunately our mass media press is not capable of explaining the world as anything but a simplistic morality tale of good versus bad and strength versus weakness. (That’s Logan’s entire original report, basically: bad guys attack because White House weak! Strong man say why we not act stronger like him?) Still: Lara Logan has made an egregious journalistic error. She had a rather obvious agenda. Her apology was laughably inadequate. CBS clearly expects to just hurry past this with a quick “sorry” and no internal review. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post helpfully fact-checked “60 Minutes” for CBS, but now that the story’s been retracted, there’s no reason for it to continue making headlines unless people keep making a fuss about it. In 2004, the fuss was massive and sustained. It would be nice to see the rest of the mass media take as much of an interest in this fiasco as they did in that one, until some heads roll. Perhaps eventually heads will roll at CBS. As their exec said, all they have is their credibility. There's just a tad's bit of difference between the Rather story and the Logan story - at least to this point. Care to take a stab at what the difference is? |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 13, 2013 20:10:14 GMT -5
Maybe the silence is because the lefties until now haven't started a thread on the subject. I for one have no problem with her being fired for being incompetent. I don't watch TV so frankly have only paid attention to the extent there were threads on the subject, so explain to us why you have been so silent up till now? All two of them ? Lol This is rightwing heaven here. Perfect odds. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 13, 2013 20:13:38 GMT -5
a story that blew up in CBS's face, he was forced to resign and right wingers everywhere celebrated long and hard. When a young, pretty woman, who leans to the right, blew a story, well, silence. Such right wing hypocrisy on display, here, yet again. How has CBS not fired this woman yet?“60 Minutes” has apologized and corrected its recent report on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, which was based in large part on an elaborate fabrication cooked up by a fame-hungry source with a book to sell. Except that CBS’s apology didn’t come with an explanation of how and why it failed to vet the story of defense contractor and fabulist Dylan Davies. The story’s lead reporter, Lara Logan, offered a 90-second correction at the close of last Sunday’s show. The correction did more to obscure her screw-up than to explain it. The question now is, when, exactly, will CBS be firing Logan? This is a bad and dumb way to cover a story like Benghazi. As Amy Davidson says: “Those military and diplomatic questions deserve better answers, ones about policy choices rather than half-discerned conspiracies.” Unfortunately our mass media press is not capable of explaining the world as anything but a simplistic morality tale of good versus bad and strength versus weakness. (That’s Logan’s entire original report, basically: bad guys attack because White House weak! Strong man say why we not act stronger like him?) Still: Lara Logan has made an egregious journalistic error. She had a rather obvious agenda. Her apology was laughably inadequate. CBS clearly expects to just hurry past this with a quick “sorry” and no internal review. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post helpfully fact-checked “60 Minutes” for CBS, but now that the story’s been retracted, there’s no reason for it to continue making headlines unless people keep making a fuss about it. In 2004, the fuss was massive and sustained. It would be nice to see the rest of the mass media take as much of an interest in this fiasco as they did in that one, until some heads roll. Perhaps eventually heads will roll at CBS. As their exec said, all they have is their credibility. There's just a tad's bit of difference between the Rather story and the Logan story - at least to this point. Care to take a stab at what the difference is? You're doing the assessment ? Lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 20:18:09 GMT -5
Alex Pareene is a partisan hack. Consider the source and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 13, 2013 20:20:20 GMT -5
Alex Pareene is a partisan hack. Consider the source and move on. I do that here all the time.  |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 13, 2013 20:22:09 GMT -5
There's another way to look at it. It might have been a plant story by the WH, so they could come back and discredit it. Make the story go away, because they could point to this story as simply say "see, it's all a lie, they are just making things up".
|
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 13, 2013 20:24:32 GMT -5
There's another way to look at it. It might have been a plant story by the WH, so they could come back and discredit it. Make the story go away, because they could point to this story as simply say "see, it's all a lie, they are just making things up". Or, you could look at it like it happened. CBS's star witness lied to them and they didn't independently verify his story like any good journalist is supposed to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 13, 2013 20:27:39 GMT -5
There's another way to look at it. It might have been a plant story by the WH, so they could come back and discredit it. Make the story go away, because they could point to this story as simply say "see, it's all a lie, they are just making things up". This is basically what people said Karl Rove did to Dan Rather. How did you feel about that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 20:28:12 GMT -5
There's another way to look at it. It might have been a plant story by the WH, so they could come back and discredit it. Make the story go away, because they could point to this story as simply say "see, it's all a lie, they are just making things up". No, just another so-called internet "journalist" with an agenda. This is the same guy who published (if Kindle can be considered publishing) "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Pareene obviously has such high regard for facts that he uses them very sparingly in this little digital polemic. Nothing more to see here. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 13, 2013 20:28:53 GMT -5
There's another way to look at it. It might have been a plant story by the WH, so they could come back and discredit it. Make the story go away, because they could point to this story as simply say "see, it's all a lie, they are just making things up". Or, you could look at it like it happened. CBS's star witness lied to them and they didn't independently verify his story like any good journalist is supposed to do. You could, but with this regime you would be a fool not to consider the possibility. After all, look at all the propaganda they put out about Benghazi at the time. And Hillary is to be the next "Chosen One", this has to be stopped as soon as possible so she isn't held responsible for her incompetence. |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 13, 2013 20:30:18 GMT -5
Or, you could look at it like it happened. CBS's star witness lied to them and they didn't independently verify his story like any good journalist is supposed to do. You could, but with this regime you would be a fool not to consider the possibility. After all, look at all the propaganda they put out about Benghazi at the time. And Hillary is to be the next "Chosen One", this has to be stopped as soon as possible so she isn't held responsible for her incompetence. Perhaps your tin foil hat needs adjustment. What's the frequency, Kenneth? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 13, 2013 20:30:30 GMT -5
There's another way to look at it. It might have been a plant story by the WH, so they could come back and discredit it. Make the story go away, because they could point to this story as simply say "see, it's all a lie, they are just making things up". This is basically what people said Karl Rove did to Dan Rather. How did you feel about that? No, that's what the Left tried to say to defend Rather. There was no way, since the proof that Rather lied was pretty clear. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 13, 2013 20:31:25 GMT -5
Or, you could look at it like it happened. CBS's star witness lied to them and they didn't independently verify his story like any good journalist is supposed to do. You could, but with this regime you would be a fool not to consider the possibility. After all, look at all the propaganda they put out about Benghazi at the time. And Hillary is to be the next "Chosen One", this has to be stopped as soon as possible so she isn't held responsible for her incompetence. I'm such a bad poster!!! Especially compared to these gems. Now to find some of moms epic posts, so I can sit and ponder them and think up some answers. It does take time you know. They are very challenging. Btw all: Don't forget to put me on ignore! Lololol |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 13, 2013 20:32:03 GMT -5
You could, but with this regime you would be a fool not to consider the possibility. After all, look at all the propaganda they put out about Benghazi at the time. And Hillary is to be the next "Chosen One", this has to be stopped as soon as possible so she isn't held responsible for her incompetence. Perhaps your tin foil hat needs adjustment. What's the frequency, Kenneth? I don't even know the amplitude. But I do know that CBS, NBC, and ABC are charter members of the LR media, so anything at all is possible. |
|
