[THS] !!!!!! Rolling Stone: Matt Taibbi: Lara Logan, You Suck

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25844.htm

Lara Logan, You Suck

By Matt Taibbi

June 29, 2010 "Rolling Stone" -- - 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!

Copyright 2010 Rolling Stone