So Let Me Get This Straight, 60 Minutes…

The respected tv news show runs a story about Benghazi, which Lara Logan says she worked on for a year, which basically melted like a snowball in a saucepan in something like 48 hours, and the correction and apology takes up just a couple minutes at the end of the show, and that is that?

Okay. We have a story that seems to have consisted of one flawed source with no corroborating eyewitness, whose book has been recalled and will be pulped, I guess. And there must be some indignity, no doubt, in 60 Minutes now being fact-checked by WND. They point out that Dylan Davies, who went by a pseudonym “for his protection” in the piece and as a nom de plume, was mentioned as having left town in a Telegraph story a year ago. This is really rather embarrassing for them, you’d think?

Or maybe they’d simply prefer not to dwell on how they got this one wrong. I do not know that it’s true, as fired former 60 Minutes exec Mary Mapes speculates, that they did this story specifically to appeal to a right wing audience, but I agree with the lesson that this is “instructive”, in the sense that just because there are people pointing to something, doesn’t mean that something is really there. I also don’t know whether a former Fox News honcho now with CBS had much to do with green-lighting the piece, except to agree that it is fascinating how stories can seem to serve certain biases, hm?

The mea culpa here seems a bit insufficient in this case particularly, though, in that the ongoing appearance of a bigger story has been the basis for a certain senator holding up Obama administration nominees--not that the spoiling of this particular line of inquiry has any effect. But all the same—if the organization is interested in getting it right, and fails, maybe they should try caring about making it right?

(And as an aside, regarding Sen. Graham’s continued quest to appear relevant in the face of his primary challenges, would it be entirely possible for him to appear actively obstructive if not foolhardy if his stand continued to turn up nothing of note? After all, if the Administration’s position as of 9/12/12 was no different than what anyone else knew at the time, you’ve not really got evidence of a cover-up at all, so much as the Administration’s failure to be omniscient—a standard that most people would agree is mighty high to expect of mere humans. I dunno. Maybe Graham is a romantic at heart and has always been prone to the menacing of aerial turbines. But this is shall we say, a Quixotic act—not realpolitik.)

(X-posted at Strangely Blogged.)

Posted by Vixen Strangely on 11/10/13 at 11:24 PM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBedwettersElection '14NuttersFriends of HumusOur Stupid MediaWar In Error

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Maybe Lara Logan and Lindsey Graham are having a secret affair and she ran the story to help him out.

I mean, that’s possible, right?

Their “apology”, or “correction”, or whatever you want to call it, was designed to obfuscate just how awful what they actually did was.

The irony of Lara Logan having to issue an apology for a story she credulously parroted, after the way she went after Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone’s reporting and patriotism, is also pretty funny.

I do not know that it’s true, as fired former 60 Minutes exec Mary Mapes speculates, that they did this story specifically to appeal to a right wing audience

The problem is that, in order to appeal to a right wing audience, they have to lie.

The problem is that, in order to appeal to a right wing audience, they have to lie.

And the BIG question is: WHY!!1! would a program that the NYT described as “one of the most esteemed newsmagazines on American television,” which rates as #6 on the all-time US television ranks, need to go after the biggest collection of sociopathic crackpots that Homo sapiens has ever produced?

It can’t be ratings . . . despite the fact that they believe the are a megalithic moral majority, they still only represent about 18% of the population.

Ah, the humanity . . .

My winger dad has hated 60 Minutes for decades because of that reality-has-a-liberal-bias thing, and here 60 Minutes stomped the life out of their credibility for an easily debunked story.  Maybe they are now counting on all the negative press to finally deliver that coveted reactionary winger demographic.

I think the interesting thing is, if they were reaching for appeal to the mostly fact-free RW appeal with a sensational and improperly vetted story—they undershot the mark. It was unravelled right away and probably did them no favors with that quadrant anyway. It never would have been worth it.

Just linking to these two things without a whole lot of comment, because I really don’t know, you guys:

A Bizarre and Telling Book Excerpt from 60 Minutes’ Bogus Benghazi Source

It sort of seems almost like Davies is writing about how he wished things went?

and I don’t know where this fits in, but it fascinates me:

Lara Logan’s Husband Was a Propagandist for the U.S. Military

Sort of seems almost like someone else wished this is how it had gone?

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main