Should Lara Logan be fired?

[Toro]

No.

She's hot.

I'd hit that.

 

[MarcATL]

Looks like CBS is trying to sweep this affront under the rug.

They've let her return to work as of the 4th of last month.

If you wan't to see more done in way of investigating this media scandal let your voice be heard here:
CBS News: Explain Discredited Report - Media Matters Take Action

They shouldn't be able to get away with this.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Consider this.

In 2004, Dan Rather and 60 Minutes II aired a report claiming to have Memos proving George W. Bush was AWOL from his National Guard unit. These were quickly determined to be fakes as they were produced on a modern computer using MicroSoft Word, as opposed to a vintage 1973 typewriter that would have produced them. After weeks of hemming and hawing, including Rather interviewing a rather confused Octegenarian secretary, they finally fessed up and admitted they'd been had.

60 Minutes II was cancelled, Mary Mapes (the producer) was fired and Dan Rather was encouraged to "retire" from his anchor position.

Okay- Flash forward to 2013. Lara "White Woman in Peril" Logan, a reporter with a long history of crazy reporting from the Middle East, who has expressed a desire that the US would "Exact Revenge" for Benghazi, puts on a person under an assumed name who claims he was present the night of the Benghazi attacks, only to be contradicted by documentary evidence from both the FBI and his employer, a British Security company.

Shouldn't she be fired as well? It seems only fair.

.

Um, well I think there may be a difference. I could care less about the partisanship presented above.

Rather reported CBS hired experts and they had authenticated the documents. So, he out and out lied to push their story. Then Rather and CBS fought and stated over and over for the next two weeks the documents were real, and those who had discredited the documents were wrong. Mary Mapes was fired too. I think you can probably compare her to Logan, not rather. But that is just my opinion. Rather made stuff up about authentication.

Logan OTOH was lead to her source by the security manager of the Embassy. I don't know what the authentication process was, it was obviously lax or they were fooled. The question is, did Logan go on air and insist the story was true after being told it was not, like Rather did for weeks after running the story? And given she apologized in less than 2 weeks as opposed to Rather swearing the documents were real and authenticated for a few weeks.

Was the same "strident defense" used by Logan as it was Rather?? I honestly wonder if Logan should have been in the ME after her gang rape. I am unsure if any reporting from that area could have been unbiased.

I don't really blame the reporters here, people are fooled all the time. The freaking news station, CBS, should independently verify every story they allow to be aired. I'm skeptical of Rather though, he inserted false claims. If Logan knew what she was saying was false or stated things which she did not know were true she should be in the same damn boat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Looks like CBS is trying to sweep this affront under the rug.

They've let her return to work as of the 4th of last month.

If you wan't to see more done in way of investigating this media scandal let your voice be heard here:
CBS News: Explain Discredited Report - Media Matters Take Action

They shouldn't be able to get away with this.

But they will get away with it.

It does contribute to the fact, however, that there is no 'scandal' concerning 'Benghazi,' that those attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists are exposed to be the liars they are, and that the American people know the truth: no 'crimes' were committed, no 'cover up' exists.

 

[JoeB131]

Consider this.

In 2004, Dan Rather and 60 Minutes II aired a report claiming to have Memos proving George W. Bush was AWOL from his National Guard unit. These were quickly determined to be fakes as they were produced on a modern computer using MicroSoft Word, as opposed to a vintage 1973 typewriter that would have produced them. After weeks of hemming and hawing, including Rather interviewing a rather confused Octegenarian secretary, they finally fessed up and admitted they'd been had.

60 Minutes II was cancelled, Mary Mapes (the producer) was fired and Dan Rather was encouraged to "retire" from his anchor position.

Okay- Flash forward to 2013. Lara "White Woman in Peril" Logan, a reporter with a long history of crazy reporting from the Middle East, who has expressed a desire that the US would "Exact Revenge" for Benghazi, puts on a person under an assumed name who claims he was present the night of the Benghazi attacks, only to be contradicted by documentary evidence from both the FBI and his employer, a British Security company.

Shouldn't she be fired as well? It seems only fair.

.

Um, well I think there may be a difference. I could care less about the partisanship presented above.

Rather reported CBS hired experts and they had authenticated the documents. So, he out and out lied to push their story. Then Rather and CBS fought and stated over and over for the next two weeks the documents were real, and those who had discredited the documents were wrong. Mary Mapes was fired too. I think you can probably compare her to Logan, not rather. But that is just my opinion. Rather made stuff up about authentication.

Logan OTOH was lead to her source by the security manager of the Embassy. I don't know what the authentication process was, it was obviously lax or they were fooled. The question is, did Logan go on air and insist the story was true after being told it was not, like Rather did for weeks after running the story? And given she apologized in less than 2 weeks as opposed to Rather swearing the documents were real and authenticated for a few weeks.

Was the same "strident defense" used by Logan as it was Rather?? I honestly wonder if Logan should have been in the ME after her gang rape. I am unsure if any reporting from that area could have been unbiased.

I don't really blame the reporters here, people are fooled all the time. The freaking news station, CBS, should independently verify every story they allow to be aired. I'm skeptical of Rather though, he inserted false claims. If Logan knew what she was saying was false or stated things which she did not know were true she should be in the same damn boat.

I think Rather and Mapes are in the same boat in that they are both letting their belief that a certain President MUST have done something bad lead them to questionable sources.

The thing is, stories about how Bush had gotten over in the National Guard had been floating around since 1999. And there's probably some truth to them, he played fast and loose with the rules, but a lot of officers did at that time. So someone saying he's a colonel in the Texas National Guard comes to him with a slew of documents that prove that Bush didn't report for duty and people covered up for him, I can see the temptation to take that at face value. The thing is, Mapes and Rather wanted to believe.

I think the same is true of Logan. Every since she got felt up during the Arab Spring, she's been really kind of nutty about the middle east. I think her objectivity went out the window a long time ago.

 

[JoeB131]

From New York Magazine.

Can ‘60 Minutes’ Afford to Take Lara Logan Back? -- New York Magazine

Indeed, the May 2012 article in New York detailed how the Benghazi story got on the air, ultimately finding that internal CBS office politics allowed Logan's personal credibility to stand in for standard fact-checking and basic reporting. New York also revealed new details about the process, many of which were inconsistent with CBS' internal review, raising questions about the validity of that review and its scope. These inconsistencies include:

While CBS' internal review found that the 60 Minutes team interviewed State and FBI sources related to Davies' story, New York reported that "no calls were made to the State Department or the FBI specifically to vet Davies' claim."

While CBS' internal review stated that reporters "with better access" to the FBI could have learned that Davies had told the agency he hadn't witnessed the attack, New York revealed that one of Logan's own sources on the story had access to that information.

While CBS' internal review found that a speech Logan gave criticizing the Obama administration's tactics toward Al Qaeda had conflicted with "CBS News standards," New York reported that Logan's bosses had helped arrange the speech and that the president of CBS News was in the audience.

 

[Bush92]

Consider this.

In 2004, Dan Rather and 60 Minutes II aired a report claiming to have Memos proving George W. Bush was AWOL from his National Guard unit. These were quickly determined to be fakes as they were produced on a modern computer using MicroSoft Word, as opposed to a vintage 1973 typewriter that would have produced them. After weeks of hemming and hawing, including Rather interviewing a rather confused Octegenarian secretary, they finally fessed up and admitted they'd been had.

60 Minutes II was cancelled, Mary Mapes (the producer) was fired and Dan Rather was encouraged to "retire" from his anchor position.

Okay- Flash forward to 2013. Lara "White Woman in Peril" Logan, a reporter with a long history of crazy reporting from the Middle East, who has expressed a desire that the US would "Exact Revenge" for Benghazi, puts on a person under an assumed name who claims he was present the night of the Benghazi attacks, only to be contradicted by documentary evidence from both the FBI and his employer, a British Security company.

Shouldn't she be fired as well? It seems only fair.

.

Your original post is racist and biased.

 

[whitehall]

First of all we know the FBI dug up the "documented evidence" after the fact. How do we know they found all the witnesses? Ms Logan merely found another witness and you can accept his claim or not. Her situation is a lot different from Dan Rather. If you want to fire every reporter who dug up information that you don't like there won't be many left. Consider the legendary informant that Woodward and Bernstein dubbed "deep throat". Everybody liked the stuff he came up with so the fact that he was unidentified (until he died) and his information was unverified didn't make any difference.

 

[beagle9]

Consider this.

In 2004, Dan Rather and 60 Minutes II aired a report claiming to have Memos proving George W. Bush was AWOL from his National Guard unit. These were quickly determined to be fakes as they were produced on a modern computer using MicroSoft Word, as opposed to a vintage 1973 typewriter that would have produced them. After weeks of hemming and hawing, including Rather interviewing a rather confused Octegenarian secretary, they finally fessed up and admitted they'd been had.

60 Minutes II was cancelled, Mary Mapes (the producer) was fired and Dan Rather was encouraged to "retire" from his anchor position.

Okay- Flash forward to 2013. Lara "White Woman in Peril" Logan, a reporter with a long history of crazy reporting from the Middle East, who has expressed a desire that the US would "Exact Revenge" for Benghazi, puts on a person under an assumed name who claims he was present the night of the Benghazi attacks, only to be contradicted by documentary evidence from both the FBI and his employer, a British Security company.

Shouldn't she be fired as well? It seems only fair.

.

Brother Joe, this thread won't get much traction.

You know why?

Because even the most partisan RW dunce knows that she should be fired, but their partisanship won't allow them to post it. So they'll just ignore it.

With that said...she should be handed her walking papers with a QUICKNESS!!!

GET YERR A$$ UP OUTTA HERE LARA!!!!

Be careful what you ask for Marc, because that ball rolls in both directions easily, then it becomes what party is the most guilty on such things, and how far should it be taken once the firings begin.

I say that if someone breaks the law by lying or deceiving people in which leads to bad things, then they should not only be fired, but prosecuted also.

 

[R.D.]

Logan was asked to take a leave and did for 6+ months. She took responsibility for being fooled and she apologized.

Is it that's she's a woman, a conservative or honest that's really bothering you?

 

[beagle9]

When Michael Hastings (may he RIP) outed the freak Gen. McCrystal, Logan unleashed a load of BS on him - traitor - not a true journalist - using the troops for money, etc.

She is SO pro war it makes my teeth hurt. Her hate for Obama is bottomless. Hell yes! She should be sacked but CBS is far too cozy with corporate to ever do the right thing.

Maybe her hate for Obama is based on her thoughts about him and his ilk supporting an uprising that almost cost her her life in Egypt.

 

[whitehall]

The so-called "standards of good journalism" seem to depend on the political climate. No journalistic team is held in higher esteem than good old Woodward and Bernstein but if they used the same tactics on Obama the left would call for their heads. What news agency would tolerate an unverified, unidentified informant furnishing "information" on a regular basis? W&B even joked that their informant would never be revealed until he was dead and couldn't answer questions or verify facts. Watergate was about a 3rd rate burglary. People died and Obama lied about Benghazi and yet there is outrage when any new evidence is produced. Verify it or discard it and move on.

 

[Mojo2]

Consider this.

In 2004, Dan Rather and 60 Minutes II aired a report claiming to have Memos proving George W. Bush was AWOL from his National Guard unit. These were quickly determined to be fakes as they were produced on a modern computer using MicroSoft Word, as opposed to a vintage 1973 typewriter that would have produced them. After weeks of hemming and hawing, including Rather interviewing a rather confused Octegenarian secretary, they finally fessed up and admitted they'd been had.

60 Minutes II was cancelled, Mary Mapes (the producer) was fired and Dan Rather was encouraged to "retire" from his anchor position.

Okay- Flash forward to 2013. Lara "White Woman in Peril" Logan, a reporter with a long history of crazy reporting from the Middle East, who has expressed a desire that the US would "Exact Revenge" for Benghazi, puts on a person under an assumed name who claims he was present the night of the Benghazi attacks, only to be contradicted by documentary evidence from both the FBI and his employer, a British Security company.

Shouldn't she be fired as well? It seems only fair.

.

CBS 60 Minutes II was intentional.

Lara Logan's was inadvertent.

Yes?

 

[hortysir]

Yes, she did WAAAAY more than Dan Rather did and she has been a noted RW partisan...on camera.

Her A$$ needs to be gone...YESTERDAY!

Yes she should be fired.

Duly noted that you feel that her political leanings should also be grounds for termination

 

[Pogo]

Consider this.

In 2004, Dan Rather and 60 Minutes II aired a report claiming to have Memos proving George W. Bush was AWOL from his National Guard unit. These were quickly determined to be fakes as they were produced on a modern computer using MicroSoft Word, as opposed to a vintage 1973 typewriter that would have produced them. After weeks of hemming and hawing, including Rather interviewing a rather confused Octegenarian secretary, they finally fessed up and admitted they'd been had.

60 Minutes II was cancelled, Mary Mapes (the producer) was fired and Dan Rather was encouraged to "retire" from his anchor position.

Okay- Flash forward to 2013. Lara "White Woman in Peril" Logan, a reporter with a long history of crazy reporting from the Middle East, who has expressed a desire that the US would "Exact Revenge" for Benghazi, puts on a person under an assumed name who claims he was present the night of the Benghazi attacks, only to be contradicted by documentary evidence from both the FBI and his employer, a British Security company.

Shouldn't she be fired as well? It seems only fair.

.

Your original post is racist and biased.

How in the FUCK is that "racist"?

 

[JoeB131]

Logan was asked to take a leave and did for 6+ months. She took responsibility for being fooled and she apologized.

Is it that's she's a woman, a conservative or honest that's really bothering you?

actually, what bothers me is that she's a sloppy reporter. It took less than 24 hours to take her story apart.

 

[JoeB131]

[

CBS 60 Minutes II was intentional.

Lara Logan's was inadvertent.

Yes?

NO, they were both cases of sloppy reporting.

The guy who lied to Logan about being at Benghazi and the guy who faked those documents both INTENTIONALLY lied to make a president look bad.

And in both cases, the correspondent involved failed to fact check or check out the story and just ran with it.

 

[JoeB131]

When Michael Hastings (may he RIP) outed the freak Gen. McCrystal, Logan unleashed a load of BS on him - traitor - not a true journalist - using the troops for money, etc.

She is SO pro war it makes my teeth hurt. Her hate for Obama is bottomless. Hell yes! She should be sacked but CBS is far too cozy with corporate to ever do the right thing.

Maybe her hate for Obama is based on her thoughts about him and his ilk supporting an uprising that almost cost her her life in Egypt.

Yes, some Arabs copped a feel. Truly her life flashed before her eyes.

"Dan, I can definitely report they got to second base!"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Consider this.

In 2004, Dan Rather and 60 Minutes II aired a report claiming to have Memos proving George W. Bush was AWOL from his National Guard unit. These were quickly determined to be fakes as they were produced on a modern computer using MicroSoft Word, as opposed to a vintage 1973 typewriter that would have produced them. After weeks of hemming and hawing, including Rather interviewing a rather confused Octegenarian secretary, they finally fessed up and admitted they'd been had.

60 Minutes II was cancelled, Mary Mapes (the producer) was fired and Dan Rather was encouraged to "retire" from his anchor position.

Okay- Flash forward to 2013. Lara "White Woman in Peril" Logan, a reporter with a long history of crazy reporting from the Middle East, who has expressed a desire that the US would "Exact Revenge" for Benghazi, puts on a person under an assumed name who claims he was present the night of the Benghazi attacks, only to be contradicted by documentary evidence from both the FBI and his employer, a British Security company.

Shouldn't she be fired as well? It seems only fair.

.

Your original post is racist and biased.

How in the FUCK is that "racist"?

Everything liberals do now is 'racist.' It's the new lie conservatives repeat often enough in the hope it's perceived to be 'true.'

 

[Pogo]

Your original post is racist and biased.

How in the FUCK is that "racist"?

Everything liberals do now is 'racist.' It's the new lie conservatives repeat often enough in the hope it's perceived to be 'true.'

That's true enough -- "Hitler was a leftist".... "FDR caused/prolonged the Depression".... this one just came in, and I shit you not, "Eisenhower was the father of the civil rights movement"

But this one referred to a specific post -- my way of putting the poster who made the claim on the spot to substantiate it. He can't, so he'll run away.

I believe JoeB's a Republican anyway.

Too many amateur wags on this board declare "racist" at the mere mention of a color. As so many other occasions, having no clue what a term means, just taking an opportunity to toss a slur turd.

Red
White
Yellow
Brown
Black

Look at me, I'm a quintuple racist!