November 26, 2013

"The CBS News correspondent Lara Logan and her producer, Max McClellan, made serious errors in an Oct. 27 report on the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya..."

"... and have been asked to take leaves of absence, the network announced Tuesday," the NYT reports.
The moves come after weeks of criticism directed at a “60 Minutes” report....
I'm not saying "60 Minutes" did a good job, but I'm skeptical of CBS's motives here. What will it take to get the full story on Benghazi? Less suppression. More information. Why aren't other reporters delving into this?

65 comments:

mccullough said...

I have no problem with this. But are they going to make Steve Croft take a leave of absence for his kneel-down interviews with Obama?

Obama is not a reliable source either. Why help him lie to the public?

Jason said...

Logan's got more guts and journalism in her left pinky fingernail than Katie Couric ever had any hope of having, but Katie got the gazillion dollar contract and they stayed with her til she destroyed the CBS brand.

Logan? Under the bus, inconvenient person.

tim maguire said...

So we finally learn what it takes for a reporter to be reprimanded for a poorly sourced story--make it critical of Obama.

Bill Crawford said...

Maybe MSNBC will take note and suspend Martin Bashir.

St. George said...

Total sideshow.

This is the story:

"In August 2013, it was reported by Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston of CNN that dozens of CIA operatives were on the ground in Benghazi on the night of the attack.[27] Their sources say 35 people were on the ground in Benghazi the night of attack, and 21 of those worked in the annex building. They further reported that according to their sources the agency was going to great lengths to keep what they were doing a secret, including polygraphing some of the survivors monthly in order to find out if they were talking to the media or Congress. The actions of the CIA were described as pure intimidation, with any leak risking the loss of a career. Former CIA agent Robert Baer described the frequency of the polygraphs as rare. The report also mentioned speculation on Capitol Hill that the CIA and State Department were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles from Libya, through Turkey, into the hands of Syrian rebels." (Wiki)

Let's confirm this, and if there were 35 Americans there, let's hear from one of them, eh, press corps?

PB Reader said...

In spite of the discrepancies with the guy's story and the FBI report, there was a whole lot of truth in the report and that makes in corruptocracy very nervous. This allows them to say the whole Benghazi story is bogus and we should just move on.

Michael K said...

The left has been after her scalp since the show went on. The falsification is minor and the whole thing is disgusting. No surprise, though.

madAsHell said...

CBS doesn't want to miss the next journalist only, off-the-record-talking-points meeting at the White House.

Paddy O said...

The leave of absence probably just gives them time in their schedule to interview with for Administration positions or with some Democratic Senator or campaign.

cubanbob said...

I'm not saying "60 Minutes" did a good job, but I'm skeptical of CBS's motives here. What will it take to get the full story on Benghazi? Less suppression. More information. Why aren't other reporters delving into this?"

It's a sad state of affairs when all we ask is that the government doesn't lie to us and that the press stops being Democratic Party hacks. As Lilly Tomlin once said "I try being cynical but I can't keep up!"

Skeptical Voter said...

I question the timing and the motive. Did she commit journalistic malpractice or did she simply offend The Imperial Lightworker? My bet is on the latter rather than the former.

FleetUSA said...

Others are doing it because Valerie Jarrett can be brutal - kneecapping careers -- at least until 2017.

And the Clinton team has the same incentive afterwards.

pm317 said...

wow, they made a scape goat out of Lara Logan!

pm317 said...

@St. George:Let's confirm this, and if there were 35 Americans there, let's hear from one of them, eh, press corps?

The same story was reported by an ex CIA who runs the Noquarter blog -- his sources may have been different than the CNN's, I bet.

garage mahal said...

CBS should have suspected Davies was a liar, WHEN HE TOLD THEM HE WAS A LIAR. Link

Illuninati said...

I normally don't care for celebrities, but I have been interested in Lara Logan ever since she was raped doing her work. She seems to be a courageous woman. Lara Logan has been through a lot trying to do her job and deserves better.

Mark said...

Simon and Schuster's attempted book promotion failed pretty bad here, as they both pulled Davies' book and now Logan is on vacation.

They didn't fire her like they did Dan Rather when he filed false 60 Minutes story. Seems like she is getting different treatment.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Bill Crawford said...
Maybe MSNBC will take note and suspend Martin Bashir.

Are you kidding? They were delighted with his editorial.

AJ Lynch said...

Do we know yet where Obama was on the night of 9/11/12?

El Pollo Raylan said...

PB Reader concludes; This allows them to say the whole Benghazi story is bogus and we should just move on.

Yes, but the Obama policy in the Middle East so far has been to encourage our traditional enemies and to weaken and isolate our traditional allies. A Benghazi capitulation and cover-up is consistent with his new policy directives.

pm317 said...

Do we know yet where Obama was on the night of 9/11/12?

He was getting his beauty rest for the fundraiser the next day. Reading a teleprompter is so hard, don't you know?

EDH said...

Let's compare:

Susan Rice, promotion.

Lara Logan, reprimand.

Alex said...

Lara Logan should be a Fox News infobabe.

Achilles said...

Brownshirts.

Hagar said...

I do not know about Lara Logan's story from this Davies`person, but this suspension and public obeisances from CBS is the Clinton Mafia pushing back.

Henry said...

Quote: Perhaps chief among the deficiencies, according to Mr. Ortiz’s review, was that the account Mr. Davies gave to Ms. Logan and Mr. McClellan differed from versions he had provided both to his employer, Blue Mountain, and to the F.B.I. This discrepancy, Mr. Ortiz writes, “was knowable before the piece aired.”

This is fairly damning. But it raises for me a completely different question. Mr. Davies held a position of responsibility -- in security, no less. How does a person like that decide to fabricate an easily discredited story? Bizarre.

Archie said...

The MSM has more than disgraced itself on Benghazi all in the service of the Mysterious Man God. If the nation survives Mr. Obama's administration there is going to a mighty comeuppance for these folks. We don't have a history of unpersons but we can develop one. Hang on to your hats.

Hagar said...

The big question still is: Why did Hillary! and the State Dept. go into full panic mode? Why all the stonewalling - and so m8ch of it patently silly - since?

There have been worse things happening in U.S. history without this kind of reaction from the Government. So, why over this?

chrisnavin.com said...

Another backdrop is the fact that the old media is already having trouble keeping up, and Logan is younger blood at 60 minutes.

Logan should have met a higher standard in her work. That's a serious issue.

That the de facto drift of much culture and media into liberal bias and a few into unchecked Leftism is another matter.

If folks don't like it, they can pay for good journalism that comes at things from a libertarian/conservative perspective or help sustain a market which rewards what you want to see.

Achilles said...

Hagar said...
The big question still is: Why did Hillary! and the State Dept. go into full panic mode? Why all the stonewalling - and so m8ch of it patently silly - since?

There have been worse things happening in U.S. history without this kind of reaction from the Government. So, why over this?

11/26/13, 8:54 PM

1. Because Hillary! read the requests for more security that the consulate requested and personally told them to shove off because it would ruin their Al Quaeda is dead narrative.

2. Because Hillary! was personally involved in decisions to funnel surface to air missiles to Syrian rebels and about 400 of them were stolen from the consulate by Al Quaeda when they killed our people.

3. Because General Ham tried to intervene during the crisis with forces that were ready to go and capable of repelling the attack and was sacked for it because they made a political calculation that a few dead americans was better than 200 dead terrorists in a dead organization Obama had personally vanquished attacking our embassy.

4. That we had over 30 CIA operatives in the same block at the time of the attack and they were ordered to stand down and let the consulate get sacked.

5. That Hillary! is probably one of the most incompetent leaders in history and made numerous decisions that lead to predictable and horrible outcomes for Americans for the benefit of her foreign "allies."

El Pollo Raylan said...

Hagar said...

The big question still is: Why did Hillary! and the State Dept. go into full panic mode? Why all the stonewalling - and so m8ch of it patently silly - since?

Recall the proximity to the 2012 Presidential debates and how important it was to make Romney look silly in them. Also, the media -- personified by Candy Crawley -- shilled for Obama on national TV.

The Benghazi events and the reactions of various commenters are of record here. It's quite interesting to look back and read the insistent remarks of those who believed in the phony video story. It forever discredited them in my view.

cf said...

Wow, this reminds me: last week or so, I heard an NPR takedown of Logan's report, and they were THRiLLED and breathless about it. It broke my heart for them to finally have an excuse to talk about Benghazi, certainly these conditions were Perfect for them.

The male of the team took the opportunity to lustily clip off all the ways that Benghazi was settled, hadn't touched the One and essentially " haha, y'all got nuthin!"

It was hideous how the pair reporting it were so creaming in their pants. And I really hate it that their one-sided declarations of settled Truth can roll right over your mind on the radio and you can't go " wait! Really? Lemme study that again." What I heard of their assessment misrepresented the problems people have with Benghazi.

Evil crew of sellout liars now.

Long live a happy courageous Lara Logan.


cf said...

I found it! They did not have a transcript when I went to search that night (nov 15). Here is the verdict of NPR about silly Benghazi-bots:

"The attack also laid bare a series of management and leadership failures at the State Department but no internal investigation, congressional inquiry or journalistic enterprise has located anything more sinister. Still, for the past year, Benghazi has been used as a political bludgeon by conservative media and House Republicans, who have convened hearings, attacked administration figures and entertained elaborate conspiracy theories, mostly alleging a politically-motivated cover-up by a president seeking reelection."

Study that a while. It is creepy. Look how that skate right past the failures of the first sentence, as if that is not " sinister" enough.

I keep thinking lately of the Series of President Adams, there's a scene where in the background they take a fellow, strip him down, pour hot tar on his scrawny body and wild fluffy feathers start flying at him. That's what I want for several of these Journ0lists.

(Source: http://www.onthemedia.org/story/correcting-record/transcript/ )

Lord Ben said...

[conspiracy]
Anyone who is willing to cover up the truth of Benghazi is willing to fabricate an alternative account given by the whistleblower to the FBI previously.
[/conspiracy]

Joe said...

By total chance (a DVD had finished) I happened to see that report--the first time I'd seen 60 minutes in 20, if not 30, years. I was first struck that they had the guts to do the story, but I was immediately bothered by the reliance on one guy with few corroborating. They guy did sound plausible until he contradicted himself on tape. It was so blatant that I was taken aback.

Unfortunately, the story would have held without this guy, so why did they bother? Given the track record of CBS and 60 minutes, it's business as usual--they went for sensationalism over straight reporting and failed to get second and third sources. This goes back to Walter Cronkite and his bullshit reports on the Vietnam war.

John said...

I have seen very little reporting on one conspiracy theory that makes sense. That is, that this was a kidnapping gone bad.

Stevens was supposed to be kidnapped by some folks on our side dressed up as bad guys. This would have let Obie have a hostage crisis.

The hostage crisis would have kept everything else out of the headlines until just before elections. "America held hostage Day 17" and so on for all the newscasts and WH press conferences.

A week before the election Obie would have either negotiated Steven's release or done a demo storming of the kidnappers and freed him. Which of the two would have depended on which played better.

In either case Obie looks like a strong leader.

Something went wrong and Stevens died. Perhaps the folks on the ground didn't know about the playlet and died trying to defend themselves. Perhaps something else.

"At this point, really, what does it matter?" The election is over.

John Henry

John said...

Just to clarify, I did not mean that Americans would actually do the kidnapping. I meant locals claiming to be some local anti-American group but really in pay of the State Dept(?) US military(?) Perhaps even the CIA.

St. George said...

Where was Obama?

What are the possibilities:

a) With a mistress
b) With a male lover
c) With a and b
d) High
e) Drunk
f) All of the above or some combination thereof
g) Secret mission
h) Medical crisis
i) Watching TV (i.e. delegated everything)
j) Answer (f) plus (i) and smoking nicotine-delivery device.
k) Posting at Althouse under an assumed name.

Personally, I've become interested in little-known medical maladies of presidents. Washington had malarial fevers. He had a benign tumor surgically removed from his hip during his second term. No anesthesia and a difficult recovery. Later, he was direly ill from the flu. Wilson was a total invalid for years. Lincoln had smallpox. Harding had congestive heart failure. Ike's doctor misdiagnosed his heart attack. Cleveland had major cancer surgery on a yacht at sea. JFK was a druggie in constant pain. And it's been conclusively proven that John Adams was blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who was a hideous hermaphroditic character with neither the force and fitness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.

So far as I can tell the only publicly released information about Obama's health is a one-page letter from his doctor in 2010. Thin stuff.

Issob Morocco said...

Yes, where was Obama on the evening of Sept 11, 2012?

Issob Morocco said...

Better yet where was Mr. Fix it, Axlerod on the same evening?

Robert Cook said...

"They didn't fire her like they did Dan Rather when he filed false 60 Minutes story. Seems like she is getting different treatment."

Well, it's too soon to say: Logan's "leave of absence" could lead to an announcement in the near future that she is leaving the network to explore other opportunities. Rather was not fired immediately, either.

BTW, Rather did not file a "false" story; he reported a story that contained claims of fact for which the supporting evidence presented could not be verified as genuine when others questioned that alleged evidence. This is still a journalistic breach, but it is not the same as filing a "false" story. (In fact, the evidence presented in that story has still never been proven to be false, although it may very well be; it simply has never been proven to be genuine.)

One can similarly say that Logan's essential story has not been proven to be false, only that a source she presented to support the story has admitted he lied. This is a journalistic breach, but not necessarily tantamount to presenting a "false" story. Logan presented, as did Rather, a badly sourced story, and either story or both may be false or true, (or somewhere in between), pending further discovery of the information available now or in future.

Robert Cook said...

"This goes back to Walter Cronkite and his bullshit reports on the Vietnam war."

And Cronkite's reports on the Vietnam war were bullshit...how?

Robert Cook said...

"Reading a teleprompter is so hard, don't you know?"

Yeah, we know; Bush never did get the hang of it.

jim murray said...

Why aren't other reporters delving into this?

Because Obama is their ward.

jim murray said...

Why aren't other reporters delving into this?

Because Obama is their ward.

Marshal said...

BTW, Rather did not file a "false" story; he reported a story that contained claims of fact for which the supporting evidence presented could not be verified as genuine when others questioned that alleged evidence.

To make this claim you must believe that both:

(1) The memo in question just happened to exactly match the default Word settings, and

(2) They specialty typewriter the Obscurers identified as capable of making the superscript (and which cost roughly 20k in today's dollars) was literally never used for a single other official document.

So in a metaphysical sense we cannot prove it false, but by that standard we cannot prove Obama would have lost the last election 80% to 20% without voter fraud. We can prove it false using any rational standard.

Freder Frederson said...

In spite of the discrepancies with the guy's story and the FBI report,

Discrepancies?! The guy fabricated the whole thing.

RecChief said...

because the other reporters have gotten the message.

A liberal friend said to me the other day that "we know all there is to know about Benghazi, why won't you unhinged wingnuts let it go? Is it because the story involves the two types of people, a black man and a woman, that you hate?"

And then launched into a screed about 'unreasonable, extremist right wingers' who are so wrapped up in their bubble that they are trying to destroy the country and can't be reasoned with.

It was a quite a sight to behold.

Robert Cook said...

Marshal,

Even granting for argument's sake that the evidence presented in Rather's story was faked--very possible, I grant, but not conclusively proven--it still does not prove that the claims in the made in the story about Bush's service were false. In fact, even absent Rather's 60 Minutes story, there were sufficient prior stories going around regarding Bush's military service that we can easily assume the 60 Minutes allegations to have been substantially true.

(As for Benghazi, I frankly don't know much about the facts or allegations of the incident, as it simply doesn't interest me. I have never delved into it. Obama has already sufficiently shown himself to be a war criminal, mass murderer, protector of mass murderers and torturers, enemy of the people, and servant and protector of the thieving plutocrats who are hollowing out our country like parasites inside a wasp, such that particular incidents such as this--to be expected during wars, legitimate or otherwise, and all our present wars are illegitimate--scarcely matter in terms of impeaching his fitness to serve...he indisputably is not.)

gerry said...

Yes, where was Obama on the evening of Sept 11, 2012?

Wasn't he "playing cards" with Reggie Love?

Marshal said...

In fact, even absent Rather's 60 Minutes story, there were sufficient prior stories going around regarding Bush's military service that we can easily assume the 60 Minutes allegations to have been substantially true.

First, this isn't what you said. You claimed the only failure was that the evidence couldn't be proven true as if there were any doubt it is false. The evidence, not the assertion of favoritism.

Second, isn't it odd that evidence requires absolute proof to be considered untrue, yet rumors are sufficient to deem accusations "substantially true"? And isn't it odd that those ever changing standards just happen to be at the level necessary to sully Bush?

At least you're admitting you accept leftist political agitprop as true even when there is literally no evidence supporting it.

bbkingfish said...

Prof. Althouse said:

"I'm not saying "60 Minutes" did a good job, but I'm skeptical of CBS's motives here. What will it take to get the full story on Benghazi?"

I laughed for 15 minutes when I read this. Hilarious stuff. Keep it coming.

Robert Cook said...

"You claimed the only failure was that the evidence couldn't be proven true as if there were any doubt it is false."

I didn't say anything about "the only failure" blah blah blah; I said it is not accurate to assert Rather reported a false story, as the evidence he presented has not been proven to be false. Questions about that evidence were raised, and he or those who put the story together have been unable to substantiate the provenance of the evidence they put forth. Thus, they are guilty of presenting a story with questionable evidence. Not "fake," (though it may be), not "genuine," (though it may be), but questionable. (And, there is doubt the evidence is fake, as much as there is doubt it is genuine.)

In short, it is as I said: Rather is guilty of presenting a badly sourced story, and that is a serious journalistic breach.

"Second, isn't it odd that evidence requires absolute proof to be considered untrue, yet rumors are sufficient to deem accusations 'substantially true?'"

You're talking about two different things: standards required for journalism and standards that may be acceptable for reasonable people to find given claims to be plausible. There are serious questions about and gaps in Bush's military service, questions and gaps that someone went to great lengths to obfuscate, and it seems reasonable and sufficient (to me, if you require this qualification) to accept the gist of the 60 Minutes claims, even as they can be rightly criticized for failing to substantiate evidence they presented in telling their story.

"And isn't it odd that those ever changing standards just happen to be at the level necessary to sully Bush?"

Please. No one but Bush apologists can seriously claim that Bush was anything but a fuck up and ne'er-do-well throughout his early life--even he does not dispute that--so there's nothing here that sullies him any more than his own general behavior before, during and after his time in the military.

Even worse were his actions as President: he initiated illegal wars on false pretenses. Anything before that is trivial by comparison.

Rusty said...

No one but Bush apologists can seriously claim that Bush was anything but a fuck up and ne'er-do-well throughout his early life--even he does not dispute that--


Not entirely.
Can you fly an F105?

Marshal said...

I said it is not accurate to assert Rather reported a false story, as the evidence he presented has not been proven to be false

But in fact the memo was proven false by any reasonable standard. After long and detailed analysis by those interested in supporting the accusations we discovered the following:

1. There existed only a handful of machines in the relevant timeframe capable of making any kind of superscript, but these were never demonstrated to be exact replicas, and the machines were very rare and expensive.

2. There is no evidence TANG purchased any of the machines capable of the combination of marks included in the memo.

3. There are no TANG memos from the same period exhibiting similar superscripts.

4. The memo exactly matches the Word defaults.

Get that? No other memos. The super expensive wondertech machine was used to type an ass-covering personal file memo, but was never used for even one official document. So why would they have bought this wondermachine?

That's what you must believe to hold your position, along with explaining away the facts that this shadow person could not possibly have acquired such a memo if it did exist, and the memo (by pure coincidence apparently) exactly matches a modern word processor.

Your insistence the memo was not proven fraudulent is your effeort to avoid the facts by demanding a standard that could not be met in any circumstance, which allows you to defend the story without defending the evidence. But to show how ridiculous your standard is, I don't note you defending claims Obama won only because of voter fraud by claiming it is not absolutely certain he didn't.

There are serious questions about and gaps in Bush's military service, questions and gaps that someone went to great lengths to obfuscate

Yes, someone went to great lengths to obfuscate facts, and her name was Mapes. And she did it so she could manipulate gullible dupes into voting against Bush, which would have made her career [like Katie Couric made millions off of her attacks on Palin] and put her in the top echelon of Democratic Party activists.

No one but Bush apologists can seriously claim that Bush was anything but a fuck up and ne'er-do-well throughout his early life

So now because he did other stupid shit this must be true? Does it bother you that instead of accepting reality you come up with an irrelevant accusation?

Anything before that is trivial by comparison.

So why continue to ruin your credibility over it?

Michael said...

Robert Cook. "Even worse were his actions as President: he initiated illegal wars on false pretenses. Anything before that is trivial by comparison."

So again we see the wonder of Bush. The stupidest man on earth convinces the world of the existence of weapons that he knew did not exist. Awesome.

Michael said...

Robert Cook. "Even worse were his actions as President: he initiated illegal wars on false pretenses. Anything before that is trivial by comparison."

So again we see the wonder of Bush. The stupidest man on earth convinces the world of the existence of weapons that he knew did not exist. Awesome.

hombre said...

'BTW, Rather did not file a "false" story ....'

Bush and other pilots in his guard unit have been reported as stating publicly, and in interviews with CBS before the Rather story, that he inquired about joining the "Palace Guard" unit and was told by his commanding officer that he didn't have the requisite flying hours. Palace Guard was the unit from which pilots were assigned to combat in Vietnam.

Additionally, CBS produced not a shred of evidence that Bush was accepted into the Texas Air Guard because of political favors.

The essence of the Rather story was not supported by facts and therefore was fabricated.

Gahrie said...

No one but Bush apologists can seriously claim that Bush was anything but a fuck up and ne'er-do-well throughout his early life--even he does not dispute that--

How about Obama? he admits to being a fuck up too. I'll match Bush's life story with Obama's any day.

Gahrie said...

And Cronkite's reports on the Vietnam war were bullshit...how?

How about Cronkite giving the American peopl ethe impression we were losing the war, when in fact we won every battle, completely eradicated the Viet Cong, and decimated the NVA.

Hell, if we had given the South Vietnamese air support liked we promised, they probably would have been able to fight off North Vietnam even after we left.

Gahrie said...

protector of the thieving plutocrats

Wow...impressive...I bet he even typed that with a straight face.

I'll give him credit though. He's right about this one. The Bush administration spent much time and resources prosecuting fraud on Wall Street, the Obama administration not so much.

Joe said...

And Cronkite's reports on the Vietnam war were bullshit...how?

Among other things, when I was in college, one of my classmates was a retired B-52 pilot who flew mission in Vietnam in the early 70s, including Operation Linebacker in 1972.

He documented the discrepancies between what Cronkite reported and actual missions and casualties. The errors were huge.

Around this time, there were several documentaries showing similar discrepancies including misreporting the Tet offensive.

damikesc said...

The media mis-reported Tet in such a massive way it had to be intentional.

Tet was a massive failure. The media portrayed it as a success for the VC.

n.n said...

Benghazi is the culmination of regime change in Libya, specifically the the outcome of selecting the wrong allies. It precedes the administration's support of the "civil war" and threats in Syria. The two events share common interests.

JoyD said...

I would sure like to know if its true that General Carter Ham tried to rescue the embassy staff, was ordered to stand down and relieved of command by his second. I read it a while ago, now General Ham says that was not the way it was.... as a career military officer, his loyalty to the service is strong. I went to school with Carter Ham. All I remember about him was that he was a good kid, straight arrow, mature for his years. In our school reunion surveys, he has been so modest that he lists his profession only as "soldier". The story of General Ham determined to do the right thing rings true to me.