I must sign off now for tonight, but I leave it to other stalwart Loganites to carry on the war against GayingToProd, and when he is gone, returning the discussion to the latest promising lines of inquiry about LL.
I tend to think that more often than not it is really the editor, sitting behind the desk directing the reporter, who is more at fault and more to blame than the reporter, Pearlstine said.
We, as editors, tend to be quite schizoid in our work, he continued. We encourage reporters to take extraordinary chances, to bring their passions to their work, and then we present ourselves as that last bastion between the journalist whos been in the field, doing the job, and the reader or viewer. And it is often a very difficult task when a story gets an extraordinary head of steam to stop it, and yet that, quite often, is really the way that editors do protect journalists.
Posted 12/19/2013 4:37 am
As a few comments alluded to, Logan's husband, Joseph Burkett, is (according to Newsweek) "a former Army sergeant and onetime employee of a private intelligence outfit hired by the Pentagon to plant pro-U.S. stories in the Iraqi media in 2005." The Lincoln Group, Burkett's former employer, apparently specialized in producing videos and phony news clips that they would then feed to media outlets, "making them appear as originating from legitimate news organizations." Ultimately, according the article Burkett was the source that Logan trusted the most -- her husband! Given his background and mindset, that was a grievous error.
The most honest answer. But I would ask people to consider something else... the photos represent the TRUTH. We think we know what might have happened, but we'll never know what REALLY happened, a real rape or not, spin or not, it's all speculation and disinformation right now. We need the internet equivalent of "physical proof" which can only be photos, videos, even a witness willing to come forward and speak (although how he/she would be verified is beyond me). Videos being the best form of exposing the truth since it's much hard to "photoshop" a video than a single picture.
Some of you might laugh, but think of this incident as something comparable to "Who shot JFK?" or "Did the Secret Service or SAS murder Princess Diana?" albeit in this case, no one died, but the crime was as staggering in many respects. It begs you to ask "What the FUCK really happened?" You watch Ms Logan's interview and you can sense that something is being spun or hidden or edited out. The discourse feels contained, held back, reserved... initially you might think, well she has to hide the actual details of her rape to protect her dignity, but watch it a few more times and I couldn't help but think: what the hell are we not being told because it's not just the sex stuff. It feels like we're only being told just enough to sate MOST people's curiosity... like 15% of the truth.
The UK gov this week just shot down another attempt to open the death of Princess Di investigation, saying there's no merit in suggestions that the SAS helped to kill her... despite an insider making strong claims that yes, they did.
These things irritate me, as it should anyone who believes in being told the truth. We know that there are so many damn photos and video of the Logan rape that if it all came out, the real story could be constructed by piecing it all together in a timeline. It'd be almost like a damn documentary given how much raw video footage exists.
When one considers the stuff that has been leaked by former NSA employee, Edward Snowden, aren't you at least a bit shocked at how much we didn't know about the vast access those in the government hav
Posted 12/19/2013 4:54 am
When one considers the stuff that has been leaked by former NSA employee, Edward Snowden, aren't you at least a bit shocked at how much we didn't know about the vast access those in the government have to our lives? We always suspected it, the revelations almost don't surprise, but up until Snowden's leak, we could NEVER unequivocably state it as TRUTH. The NSA has lied to Congress itself about the incredible coverage they have. Lying to the masses means nothing to them in that case. I've been torn as to whether Snowden is hero or traitor, but either way, it's good to see the truth come out for just once.
The pictures/video are proof, once they come out, the gov can no longer spin it, deny it, or lie about it.
Posted 12/19/2013 5:03 am
I agree. I have multiple reasons for wanting to follow this story. There's a part of me that wants to "see Lara naked." But a part of me believes that if I see the pictures, they're not going to be that erotic. I do want to know the truth. I want to know who did this and are they still in power. I want to know if this was buried: who did it, how did they do it and why. And btw isn't it ironic that when you are looking for Lara pictures that you keep running into pictures of that poor dead guy in Benghazi. You can't find a picture of her but the story that took her down, you can find a gruesome picture.
Dear Brothers and Sisters, as we are reaching the end of the day, let us thank the Lord for this gift that today was.
Please put your hand on the screen as we pray together:
O eternal God and Ruler of all creation, You have allowed me to reach this hour.
Please forgive the sins I have committed this day by word, deed or thought.
Purify me, O Lord, from every spiritual and physical stain.
Grant that I may rise from this sleep to glorify You by my deeds throughout my entire lifetime,
and that I be victorious over every spiritual and physical enemy.
Deliver me, O Lord, from all vain thoughts and from evil desires,
for yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and forever.
I saw those a while back while digging around on other sites. This is actually one of the things that started me wondering about the media and the Internet. Because, I heard about the death of the US ambassador on the 6pm news as most folks likely did, but didn't really pay close attention to it. The way our mass media conveys this stuff, you hear someone important was killed, how tragic it was, the outrage over the fact that the US was warned it might happen... but the 6pm news won't show you the kind of photos that you see on those two websites above.
I stumbled onto those sites, saw what the attackers were doing to the poor US ambassador's dead body in the photos and was OUTRAGED. I wanted those people responsible killed, and killed painfully. You cannot look at how those Islamists treated the corpse and not feel some form of rage. And then I took a step back and realized: my 6pm news
didn't tell me THIS side of the story, about this degradation of the corpse. Why not? Why did it hold this information back?
A fast conclusion is that they didn't want to incite mob anger against muslims (similar to what I said before about
why the Logan rape photos are suppressed to prevent a similar emotional reaction). The mass media, feeling a need to shield the public from the true horror, wanting to prevent any anti-muslim retaliation, contained the full story.
They mean well, but now I know that the truth was hidden from me; if it weren't for the internet, I'd never have known this aspect to the incident. Right away, I knew: I can never trust my local newscast to ever tell me the full story again. Not just that, but how many dozens of times, hundreds of times in my entire life, have I watched something on the 6pm news and been given an edited version of real events? That's NOT what I've always assumed. I expect the FULL story from the media. This is akin to a "Neo moment" from the Matrix where some fundamental things that you assume your whole life are actually false.
The Matrix movie demonstrated that the best PRISONS are the ones where the jailed think they have total freedom and have full access to the truth about their world and surroundings. When Neo learned the truth, don't u think he looked at his fellow denizens and pitied them? How little they actually know? Ed Snowden said as much, that working for the NSA, he learned things about how the US gov actually operated and it drove him nuts.
Why can I go onto the net and see photos of the ambassador being brutalized but not of Lara Logan? Why didn't the NSA do the same for his photos? That's why I think in her case, there's more to it than just the sex stuff.
So going back to what was said earlier: say I want to post a photo of the Lara Logan rape on this thread... the question now I have in my mind, is what would happen? Would that photo mysteriously vanish? Would the thread get hacked and my post deleted? Not by the moderators (who clearly seem to care little about what actually does get posted here since we've seen some pretty gross stuff make it in) but WHO is out there doing that deleting?
Just like with that 6pm news realization, am I going to have another realization that even the Internet, where I could see those horrific photos of the US ambassador being brutalized, a place where I used to think one could learn the truth, is also just as contained and controlled as the mass media? Right now I only have a suspicion, but I don't have proof; if I actually had the rape photos, I could theoretically test out that theory by simply trying to post it here and seeing what would happen. Maybe in the past other insiders did try to post a photo, it got deleted, they tried again, it gets deleted again... until finally they gave up. They try to post a message saying that they keep getting blocked from posting a photo and even that message is deleted. They've been wholly silenced, the rest of us, including myself, never know that they ever tried and were blocked because they've been rendered "speechless" by the NSA.
I don't have anything worthwhile to post or I'd consider testing it. The only way to know if you're inside an invisible jail cell, is to reach your arm out between the bars and see if a baton comes swinging down to bruise your arm. At least then I'd be a bit closer to the truth one way or another.