CBS & Laura Logan

[Gipper]

CBS reporter's Cairo nightmare
Lara Logan set upon by mob in brutal sex attack

CBS went public with the incident only after it became clear that other media outlets were on to it, sources said.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/intern...ightmare_pXiUVvhwIDdCrbD95ybD5N#ixzz1E98xl2Nb

Why would CBS initially decline to report this story? And, only report it after other networks were on to it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why would CBS initially decline to report this story? And, only report it after other networks were on to it.

I would guess because she was a friend and colleague and they wanted to spare her the pain of having a horrible and traumatic event broadcast to the world.

Why would you think?

 

[Gipper]

I would guess because she was a friend and colleague and they wanted to spare her the pain of having a horrible and traumatic event broadcast to the world.

Why would you think?

Probably.

But, would CBS try to withhold the story if a bunch of Tea Party members or rightwing Christians did the terrible act?

 

[Dr.Who]

Probably.

But, would CBS try to withhold the story if a bunch of Tea Party members or rightwing Christians did the terrible act?

I am doubting that they withheld the story because they are sympathetic to the Egyptians because other networks that share their view told the story.

But maybe, would the opportunity to smear tea partiers outweigh any loyalty they had to Ms. Logan? I'm guessing it would.

 

[Gipper]

I am doubting that they withheld the story because they are sympathetic to the Egyptians because other networks that share their view told the story.

But maybe, would the opportunity to smear tea partiers outweigh any loyalty they had to Ms. Logan? I'm guessing it would.

According to the NY Post, CBS did withhold the story until it became clear that other networks were going to report it. If that is true, it would seem to indicate something strange going on.

 

[dogtowner]

According to the NY Post, CBS did withhold the story until it became clear that other networks were going to report it. If that is true, it would seem to indicate something strange going on.

nothing strange about the uberlib media selectively reporting that which contradicts their worldview. peaceful protests indeed...

 

[Rick]

See BS suppressed the story because the islamofascist thugs don't fit the lib media narrative of a democratic revolution, which in some indirect way must be due to obozo's "foreign policy".

 

[Apathy]

nothing strange about the uberlib media selectively reporting that which contradicts their worldview. peaceful protests indeed...

Wow history does repeat itself same thing happened w/ the AZ shootings... I see a tragedy and you see a political opportunity, you are scum.

 

[Apathy]

See BS suppressed the story because the islamofascist thugs don't fit the lib media narrative of a democratic revolution, which in some indirect way must be due to obozo's "foreign policy".

Or maybe they wanted a little bit of privacy for Laura.

 

[Gipper]

See BS suppressed the story because the islamofascist thugs don't fit the lib media narrative of a democratic revolution, which in some indirect way must be due to obozo's "foreign policy".

I suspect you are right.

The left wing media does a whitewash on the murderous acts committed by Muslims every day. How is it the left media does not report the horrific acts against women, minorities, gays, etc committed everyday in the Muslim world?

Imagine if the Ft Hood scumbag was a conservative Christian. The crazy leftists in the media would go nuts. But, since he was a radical Muslim, nothing to see here.

The left media and their politicians reserve their hatred and indignation ONLY for conservatives and Christians. And, many are duped!

 

[Dr.Who]

nothing strange about the uberlib media selectively reporting that which contradicts their worldview. peaceful protests indeed...

I agree that media spins stories and selects what view they want to put out. They do want to spin this as peaceful protests.

Except that most of the media WANTED to run the story except for the one outlet whose reporter was involved. The only cover up was by the one company that would want to protect their own reporters privacy.


So was the story spun still? Yes it was. Read the stories that did come out and you will see that according to them it was not protesters who did her harm - it was a faction within the protesters.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I agree that media spins stories and selects what view they want to put out. They do want to spin this as peaceful protests.

Except that most of the media WANTED to run the story except for the one outlet whose reporter was involved. The only cover up was by the one company that would want to protect their own reporters privacy.


So was the story spun still? Yes it was. Read the stories that did come out and you will see that according to them it was not protesters who did her harm - it was a faction within the protesters.

The protests where in fact by in large peaceful...no one suggests that for 3 weeks, in protests across a large nation...nothing bad happened. You say spin...but it those trying to use this as to change those facts...that are spinning it.

 

[Dr.Who]

The protests where in fact by in large peaceful...no one suggests that for 3 weeks, in protests across a large nation...nothing bad happened. You say spin...but it those trying to use this as to change those facts...that are spinning it.

Lets consider if they were characterized by peach or by violence. If they began peacefully and then only got violent in the last few days we might conclude that they only turned violent. But if the violence began from the start we might take that as evidence that they were violent.

We could apply the same logic to news stories. If in the beginning they stories reported on the violence and then later switched to not reporting the violence we might conclude that the spin had begun once the media knew what the playbook was.

Here are quotes from a story on the 4th day of the protest:

"Chaos engulfed Egypt Friday as protesters seized the streets of the capital, battling police with stones, bottles and firebombs and burning down the ruling party headquarters. The peak of FOUR DAYS OF UNREST posed the most dire threat to President Hosni Mubarak in his three decades of authoritarian rule. " [caps added]

"Demonstrators were trying to storm the foreign ministry and the state TV building in Cairo, The Associated Press reported. Violent clashes were also reported near the Egyptian parliament.

Television images showed several buildings in Cairo, including the headquarters of the ruling party, ablaze.

Flames also threatened the Egyptian National Museum, where Army units secured the building with spectacular treasures such as the death mask of the boy king Tutankhamun."

"Demonstrators stayed on the streets in defiance of security forces, some mounting armored cars, cheering and waving flags.

Others around the city looted banks, smashed cars, tore down street signs and pelted armored riot police vehicles with paving stones torn from the pavement"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41307908/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

IN contrast more recent reports - well actually I would be wrong because more recent reports also were about the violence and injuries suffered.

The difference was that the protesters were now being called "heroes of democracy" despite the fact that there were still many factions within the protests some of them as dangerous as the Muslim Brotherhood. And I agree that many of them are heroes of democracy (though that kind of language does not belong in a news story) but I object to the downplaying of the dangers involved here.

So when I said earlier that the spin was about downplaying the violence I was wrong. It is about downplaying the dangerous factions in a misguided effort not to detract from the heroes. Why would the media not want to detract from the heroes? I give two reasons 1) Some of them are fighting for freedom 2) President Obama has taken sides.

All in all though this story is not the most spun story that we have seen from the media. By comparison this one is far less spun than many others.

 

[dogtowner]

Lets consider if they were characterized by peach or by violence. If they began peacefully and then only got violent in the last few days we might conclude that they only turned violent. But if the violence began from the start we might take that as evidence that they were violent.

We could apply the same logic to news stories. If in the beginning they stories reported on the violence and then later switched to not reporting the violence we might conclude that the spin had begun once the media knew what the playbook was.

Here are quotes from a story on the 4th day of the protest:

"Chaos engulfed Egypt Friday as protesters seized the streets of the capital, battling police with stones, bottles and firebombs and burning down the ruling party headquarters. The peak of FOUR DAYS OF UNREST posed the most dire threat to President Hosni Mubarak in his three decades of authoritarian rule. " [caps added]

"Demonstrators were trying to storm the foreign ministry and the state TV building in Cairo, The Associated Press reported. Violent clashes were also reported near the Egyptian parliament.

Television images showed several buildings in Cairo, including the headquarters of the ruling party, ablaze.

Flames also threatened the Egyptian National Museum, where Army units secured the building with spectacular treasures such as the death mask of the boy king Tutankhamun."

"Demonstrators stayed on the streets in defiance of security forces, some mounting armored cars, cheering and waving flags.

Others around the city looted banks, smashed cars, tore down street signs and pelted armored riot police vehicles with paving stones torn from the pavement"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41307908/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

IN contrast more recent reports - well actually I would be wrong because more recent reports also were about the violence and injuries suffered.

The difference was that the protesters were now being called "heroes of democracy" despite the fact that there were still many factions within the protests some of them as dangerous as the Muslim Brotherhood. And I agree that many of them are heroes of democracy (though that kind of language does not belong in a news story) but I object to the downplaying of the dangers involved here.

So when I said earlier that the spin was about downplaying the violence I was wrong. It is about downplaying the dangerous factions in a misguided effort not to detract from the heroes. Why would the media not want to detract from the heroes? I give two reasons 1) Some of them are fighting for freedom 2) President Obama has taken sides.

All in all though this story is not the most spun story that we have seen from the media. By comparison this one is far less spun than many others.

They too are blind those who will not see. POS wants to believe as its a happy reminder of the 60s which were the golden era of liberalism.

 

[Cruella]

CBS Reporter Lara Logan: Gov’t 'Major Lie Being Propagated'…
Al Qaeda Coming Back ... 'They Hate Us Now More Than Ever'

I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.
The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.

“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”

She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”

Lara Logan is calling Obama out and saying he is lying to us