Posted: June 28, 2010 4:45 P.M. EDT | By Matt Taibbi

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 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!






Sponsored Links

Buy a Link Here

Staples® Weekly Ad Get a Free backpack this week @ Staples!* Check out all our hot deals now!


Sort by:

June 28, 2010 11:54 P.M. EDT

184 LIKE

Standing on a chair; cheering and clapping wildly... Well said.

June 28, 2010 11:52 P.M. EDT


Didn't Lara Logan have sex with a soldier while reporting during the Iraq war? LOL Anything that woman has to say is gibberish. I would turn to Fox News before I turned to anything that woman has to say. Lara, you do suck... I am sure your hubby has brainwashed you with his miliatary propaganda. Btw...Read More

June 28, 2010 11:58 P.M. EDT

124 LIKE

Brilliantly said. I note that she's married to a defense contractor. Because being figuratively in bed with the topic you're covering apparently wasn't enough for her.

June 29, 2010 4:55 P.M. EDT


Well....Now I guess we know how she got to be the "chief" foreign correspondent. And how she got those rug burns on her knees! Keep up the great work, Matt. Keep reminding everyone what good journalism is all about. You're the best!

June 29, 2010 5:14 P.M. EDT


This is a great article which, unfortunately, dispels the myth to a degree that journalists are supposed to be neutral. Ms. Logan's marriage, background, and conduct bring an unacceptable bias to her reporting and casts a pall over CBS News. I won't be watching her or them for a long time.

June 30, 2010 9:56 A.M. EDT


Sure, a lot of the so-called reporters are lazy sycophants who just want to be part of the club and simply regurgitate press releases rather than do real work, but your earlier point is the more essential and explains why the network hires these preppy suck-ups instead of real journalists. The major...Read More

amy c.
June 30, 2010 10:11 A.M. EDT


I agree with the substance of what you say, Matt. What I don't dig at all is the dickswinging bullshit spit-on-the-girl manner in which you say it. Stick to the substance and lose the testosterone-fuelled frothing at the mouth. You've lost some credibility with me by doing it.

June 30, 2010 9:59 A.M. EDT


Matt, Glad to see you are back in top form. The stupidity has been deafening lately. It's good that you can translate Logan. I found her statements incomprehensible, I think she doin' 'ludes again. How about Geraldodo Rivera? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/geraldorivera-likens-rolling-stones-michael-ha...Read More

June 30, 2010 11:43 A.M. EDT


A few weeks ago while surfing past CNN I heard the anchor say "Sir, we can only report what the government tells us." The anchor! Had kind of hoped it was just a poorly-worded


Before Lady Gaga: Madonna, Elton John and More Monster Influ

David Fricke Reviews Tom Petty's "Mojo"

Matt Taibbi: McChrystal and Us

Rolling Stone's Guide to the Twilight Saga: Vampires, Werewo

Rob Sheffield on the Summer's Best Jams

The Dark Side of Pink Floyd: The Illustrated History of the

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful