Skip to main content

View Diary: Logan Admits "60 Minutes Was Wrong" (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The diary is an exemplar of why the internet sucks (0+ / 0-)

    Before the internet, anyone with any decency and common sense would be embarrassed to feel or, worse, to look like they were enjoying watching a public flogging of a reporter who was trying to do her job and put too much trust in a source who was lying to her.

    Trumpeting that glee? I am sure you'll enjoy everyone doing a dance in your face when you suffer a great professional blow.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

    by FischFry on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:09:08 AM PST

    •  Where did I attack Logan? (20+ / 0-)

      I used her own words to show how wrong this story was from inception. Reread this short diary, because you must have missed this: "I have to admit I'm relishing the worm-on-the-hook predicament of the formerly relevant investigative news show." Do you get the distinction? I am delighted that 60 Minutes is finally admitting that the story was BS. It shouldn't have been aired in the first place. Great harm was done by the story, e.g. Senate confirmations blocked, renewed hysteria on the right wing, ammunition to use against Clinton if she runs, etc.

      All media needs to be accountable for lies and deception and even gullibility. The media possesses great power. If they are allowed to get away with everything/anything, then we suffer the harm.

      Work and pray, live on hay, You'll get pie in the sky when you die." The Preacher and the Slave, by Joe Hill, 1911

      by Joe Hills Ghost on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:28:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Seriously? (24+ / 0-)

      This "report" was sketchy to begin with - and new facts came out almost two weeks ago.
      On top of that, Lara Logan's report was used as the latest excuse for Senate Republicans to obstruct Senate business. Did you know there are holds on judicial appointments until Lindsey Graham gets to interview this "Benghazi survivor"? This is far bigger than public flogging of fake journalism.

      "And where are the survivors? Fourteen months later, the people who survived the attack in Benghazi have not been made available to the U.S. Congress for oversight purposes,” Graham said on Fox & Friends Monday morning, referring to the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, including the top American diplomat there. “So I’m going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to Congress.”
      His vow comes on the heels of a 60 Minutes report Sunday that revealed new details about the sophistication behind the attack.
    •  FischFry, this is bigger than LL having a bad day. (14+ / 0-)

      You do understand what the right wing is trying to do with "Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi", right?  And how 60 Minutes helped them considerably?  

      Remember that Lindsey Graham and other GOP congress members have recently vowed not to confirm ANY Democratic appointments, no matter how legitimate, "because Benghazi."  There is a direct connection between what 60 Minutes did and what the GOP thinks they can get away with re: cover for obstructing our government.

      •  There's no connection (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Other than to note that the show's staff was played. 60 Minutes was trying to do what it always does -- trying shine a light in corners that powerful folks try to keep hidden. Because they are perceived as typically targeting those on the right, they were probably over-eager to find a hook to go after the current Administration. If you're suggesting they were deliberately complicit, I think you're way off. That's why I wrote that it's inappropriate and uncool to be gleeful.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

        by FischFry on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:09:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know what, you are right (5+ / 0-)

          in the big picture. We end up with things like NSA revelations years into the spying, partly because journalists didn't look in that dark corner. But they have to quit with the 1/2 truths and sensationalism and using each other as sources. It's a fucked up mess, and without the internet we would have minimal resources to look up the truth ourselves.

          In this particular case, Benghazi has been ridiculously overblown and CBS played right into it, even after they knew there were questions with their witness' story. At this point the right has turned Benghazi into a political football for reasons other than 4 dead Americans - although if anyone questions their motives it becomes an accusation that nobody cares about the dead. A revelation like this false report does make me gleeful because it might take away the bullshit use of "Benghazi" to hold up the government, and maybe even end the filibustering once and for all.

        •  Not deliberately complicit, but wilfully negligent (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joe Hills Ghost, elwior, polecat

          60 Minutes was warned that their source was shifty, but they went with him anyway.  That part of it is, indeed, on Logan and her producers.

    •  There is a huge difference between a reporter (11+ / 0-)

      reporting something which she/he believes is true based on witness statements, their own research and corroborating evidence and a reporter knowingly (and I say that because it seems even a cursory look into the background would have uncovered giant discrepancies in Davie's story)  allowing someone to spread lies and misinformation with no push back.  This is further exacerbated by the fact that Logan, and CBS, vehemently denied any wrong doing, claimed there were no inconsistencies in the story and refused to acknowledge they did anything wrong.  Even this mealy mouthed admittance is more of a face saving gesture than actual contrition.

      Before the internet, anyone with any decency and common sense would be embarrassed to feel or, worse, to look like they were enjoying watching a public flogging of a reporter who was trying to do her job and put too much trust in a source who was lying to her.
      Before the internet, we would not have had the instant debunking of an obviously fake story.  And, she was most emphatically not doing her job.  A journalists job is to try and find any holes in a story in order to verify that what they are being told is the truth.  Logan, and CBS, did nothing more than rush a sensational story to broadcast in order to cash in on the faux outrage it would generate instead of actually doing their jobs.

      If this had been an actual innocent mistake, I can understand your outrage, but the fact that they continually, and knowingly, lied to the public has earned them all the scorn and ridicule that comes their way.  This  is not a case of a reporter being duped by a source, it's a case of a reporter refusing to do even a modicum of what she is supposed to do.

    •  Ha. Maybe if she DID her job instead of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Joe Hills Ghost

      "trying to do her job" she wouldn't be in this situation.

      Internet, indeed.

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

      by bigtimecynic on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 09:47:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  FF, Logan has been demanding "retribution" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe Hills Ghost

      for the Benghazi attacks since at least October 2012. She was ripe for any good looking con man. She may have sought him out — or possibly encouraged him to write his "compelling" story.

      And she has not suffered any sort of "great professional blow.

      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

      by samddobermann on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 01:18:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site