But What's Really Important is Who She's Boinking

You know it's pretty sad when the coverage of a hard working reporter in a dangerous land, Lara Logan, only gets notice because of who she has supposedly been sleeping with. Or maybe these smarmy reports are only showing up because of coverage and comments like the following regarding the war in Iraq.

Lara Logan Speaks Out, Lands Promotion, Ends Up in Tabloids - LA Times - 26 Jun 08

"Logan has repeatedly argued with the idea that the U.S. press is putting a negative spin on Iraq, saying that if anything, the picture Americans get consistently fails to convey the gravity and horror she has seen on the ground. Then yesterday, CBS extended Logan's contract and broadened her beat to include international security issues and matters of U.S. policy, making her one of the top international affairs journalists in the U.S.

And now today, strange timing, Logan has fallen into the gossip world's unflattering cross-hairs, with The New York Post and National Enquirer (with major amplification from The Huffington Post) spreading an anonymously sourced, partly contradictory story about Logan's sex life."

It wouldn't be the first time this sex smear angle has been done. Remember when CNN's Peter Arnett was sleeping with the enemy too? (BTW, the Wikipedia entry has some interesting background on the famous to infamous "Baby Milk Factory" story.)

Knight Fellowships: 1991 Knight Lecture: Peter Arnett - Stanford University

"But beyond what the Senator inferred about my family, suggesting that my ex-Vietnamese wife’s relatives were working with the Viet Cong and suggesting that my political motives were that I was a sympathizer for both the Communist and Vietnam and the Fascists in Iraq – how’s that for a political spectrum? – he did apologize and I accepted his apology and I apologize for bringing it up tonight in fact."

Just to be a contrary sort, it's interesting that in one instance the reporting is defended and in the next it's completely dismissed by same reporter. What's up with that? More nuances lost in the sound biting I suspect.

( Two videos behind cut . . . )

But What's Really Important is Who She's Boinking

You know it's pretty sad when the coverage of a hard working reporter in a dangerous land, Lara Logan, only gets notice because of who she has supposedly been sleeping with. Or maybe these smarmy reports are only showing up because of coverage and comments like the following regarding the war in Iraq.

Lara Logan Speaks Out, Lands Promotion, Ends Up in Tabloids - LA Times - 26 Jun 08

"Logan has repeatedly argued with the idea that the U.S. press is putting a negative spin on Iraq, saying that if anything, the picture Americans get consistently fails to convey the gravity and horror she has seen on the ground. Then yesterday, CBS extended Logan's contract and broadened her beat to include international security issues and matters of U.S. policy, making her one of the top international affairs journalists in the U.S.

And now today, strange timing, Logan has fallen into the gossip world's unflattering cross-hairs, with The New York Post and National Enquirer (with major amplification from The Huffington Post) spreading an anonymously sourced, partly contradictory story about Logan's sex life."

It wouldn't be the first time this sex smear angle has been done. Remember when CNN's Peter Arnett was sleeping with the enemy too? (BTW, the Wikipedia entry has some interesting background on the famous to infamous "Baby Milk Factory" story.)

Knight Fellowships: 1991 Knight Lecture: Peter Arnett - Stanford University

"But beyond what the Senator inferred about my family, suggesting that my ex-Vietnamese wife’s relatives were working with the Viet Cong and suggesting that my political motives were that I was a sympathizer for both the Communist and Vietnam and the Fascists in Iraq – how’s that for a political spectrum? – he did apologize and I accepted his apology and I apologize for bringing it up tonight in fact."

Just to be a contrary sort, it's interesting that in one instance the reporting is defended and in the next it's completely dismissed by same reporter. What's up with that? More nuances lost in the sound biting I suspect.

( Two videos behind cut . . . )