The New York Magazine piece on Logan is a fascinating read, although I wonder if it isn't being a bit unfair about Logan's using her sex appeal to get ahead. Far more troubling to me is the idea that she doesn't scruple at bending stories to her angle on them, not so much to reveal the truth, but the truth as she wants to reveal it. I'm not very sure that a reliable old firm like 60 Minutes needs someone who combines ambition with gullibility in quite the way she's done. I think they'd very nearly be better served by picking up someone like Jeremy Scahill or Greg Palast. (I snickered, leftistly. Although seriously.)
3 comments:
Or...or, can you imagine Amy Goodman? On 60 Minutes? She's like the anti-Barbara Walters. That would be really neat, and a also, what the fuck is ABC doing with Laura Ingraham? Because, as the old folk tale says--they knew what she was when they picked her up, right?
Hi Vixen,
Lara Logan... well I understand the primary emphasis of this article is directed at the idea that she was an ambitious, ruthless, and conceivably unethical competitor in the news business. Beauty, brains, with the capacity to step on other people's throats. Gotta be a success in there somewhere.
I know how Lara Logan can get back on top. More about this in a second.
A couple of things first though. One, previous to her rape she had been kicked out of Cairo and told in no uncertain terms that she should not come back. Now obviously the fundamentalist radicals in the Mideast make our fundamentalists seem tame. The kind of people that told her to stay away stone people, chop off their hands, whip them into a bloody mess, and do female mutilations over the most whimsical of pretexts.
Most people would have stayed away. Not our Lara. Your head has to be in a special place to dismiss the threats of that kind of danger and just think you will prevail because you are you.
Second, now apparently Lara is having trouble getting back on top, and I have a solution.
When my boss redneck buddies and I talk about the news, naturally the important thing comes up -- what broadcasters we'd like to sleep with. And this is why I can appreciate your idea that does not find fault with Lara using sex appeal to get to the top.
In our market Megan Kelly is on opposite Rachel Maddow. All the guys down at the range, in between busting caps, clearly would prefer to sleep with the femme. Sometimes some of the girls on Fox even show some leg.
Now that's what I'm talking about. So if MSNBC wants to suck in a lot of new viewers, simply put Lara Logan in for Rachel Maddow. Maybe some short dresses, a little cleavage. The next thing you know liberals are starting to grab onto a lot more market share.
--Formerly Amherst
Not our Lara. Your head has to be in a special place to dismiss the threats of that kind of danger and just think you will prevail because you are you.
Actually, considering the places she has been and things she has seen, the special place her head may be at is what I find worrying. It's no knock against her personal bravery, but I think a quiet stretch as a basic newsreader might actually be trying for someone of her temperment.
Also, us libs can be as "for us or agin' us" as anyone. The Benghazi story would be a mark against her with the regular MSNBC viewers.
Post a Comment