Former CBS News’ Lara Logan Hits Media For Becoming ‘Propagandists’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former CBS News Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan criticized the mainstream media for their left-leaning tilt during an interview with retired Navy SEAL Mike Ritland for the Friday episode of his “Mic Drop” podcast.
“You say the media is mostly liberal. I agree with you. It’s true. Why can I say that with certainty?” Logan began. “Well, first of all, I’ve been part of this for all my life. I’m 47 now and I’ve been a journalist since I was 17 and the media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just in the U.S., but in this country. Eighty-five percent of journalists are registered Democrats, so that’s just a fact.”
“Visually, anyone who’s ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray, and the rest of the wall is for the men,” she continued. “To me, that’s a great representation of the American media, is that in this tiny little corner where the women pray you’ve got Breitbart and Fox News and a few others, and from there on, you have CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever, right? All of them.”
“Although the media has always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense or at least the effort to be objective today. We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that,” Logan added. “Standards are out the window, I mean you read one story after another or hear it and it’s all based on one anonymous administration official, former administration official. That’s not journalism, that’s horseshit.”
President Donald Trump has also frequently ridiculed publications that have published stories based solely on anonymous sources. Trump tweeted, “When you see ‘anonymous source,’ stop reading the story, it is fiction” back in August.
Tags
Who is online
304 visitors
She's absolutely correct. As a former Editor-in-Chief for 2 years of my university newspaper back in 1957-58, I became very aware of media bias, and at that time we considered The Christian Science Monitor our model not only for its style and setup, but because it won the awards for being the most unbiased newspaper (although it has since turned somewhat left). When I see headlines on the media like "Israel Kills 3 Gazans", and then have to read down about 3 paragraphs to read that the Gazans had broken through the fence and were throwing grenades and Molotov cocktails at the border-defending IDF soldiers and one of the Gazans was blown up when a grenade he was throwing blew up in his hand, and in fact they were all Hamas militants, well it doesn't take much intelligence to know what the media were doing. So many people don't bother reading the stories,, just skim the headlines and only read a paragraph or two but the truth is buried farther down the column. So what do you think that does?
Or, watch a short video of a Native American being surrounded by boys from a Catholic school and act like the boys were in the complete wrong and should be blacklisted for their behavior. That reporting caused even their own Diocese to condemn them to "get ahead" of the media storm. Then, the full video is found and spread and it shows not only that the kids did nothing wrong, but that they were taking abuse long before the Native American and his companions showed up. Also, it shows the Native American ignoring a clear path to get into the middle of the boys and then the media kept putting this guy on the air as he lied about what actually happened. Frankly, all of the media needs to start looking for facts and reporting those facts as Walter Cronkite used to do instead of immediately trying to get a major scoop. Accurate and factual reporting without spin is what people rely on the media for, and once you stop doing that, you are a propagandist and no better than Joseph Goebbels in regards to credibility.
It's too late, Tom. The media has already stopped doing that, most likely to never again return to true facts and honest opinion. You can no longer believe what you read and hear, and only half of what you see with your own eyes. And there are those who criticize the media in China...They're AMATEURS compared to the so-called civilized western media.
It's not healthy for the country for 90% of the supposedly objective gatekeepers of this country to be partisan Democrats. The media's blatant partisanship why Obama's foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes was able to describe the media as an echo chamber that they could manipulate at will. They were on Obama's team and thus more than happy to carry water for him.
The good news is that most people understand the media is not unbiased, neutral observer at this point and know to treat their claims skeptically. It'd be better if they dropped all pretense to objectivity, but at least the mask is off at this point.
First of all, she's not wrong. Second, she's still hot.
she's still hot.
Fox news has proved over and over that beauty doesn't necessarily equate to brains.
As intelligent people know, truth has a liberal bias so it makes sense that most media would be liberal.
She isn't on Comedy Central.
And yet she's telling some hilarious jokes. Most jokes are just exaggerations of something to the point of the ridiculous, and in that regard he statements fulfill the requirement. The fact is religious conservatives have enjoyed a privileged position in America and in our media for the last 240 years and as more and more media start telling it like it is instead of telling the 700 Club version the more the religious conservatives gnash their teeth feeling like they're being overshadowed and forgotten simply because they don't get to control the narrative any longer.
"When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"
Reality has a liberal bias.
And this line...
"Eighty-five percent of journalists are registered Democrats, so that’s just a fact."
So where did this number come from? The same place many conservatives get all their "facts", right out of their asses.
"Although the media has always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense or at least the effort to be objective today."
Objectivity does not mean considering the "alternative" in every story. Giving any air to bullshit nonsense stories or giving space for the "But what if..." right wing conspiracy theorists is not being "objective". Introducing any fantasy like is often spouted in right wing media like how "God" did this or that, "God" elected Donald Trump or somehow affects US politics, is not "objective".
All "right wing media" is, is a repackaging of standard media with a conservative opinion thrown in. The standard media is only "biased" in so much as it doesn't present conservative opinion as fact as the right wing media outlets do. Standard media also has a wider audience because they aren't full of fact-less bullshit conservative religious opinion, and that's a GOOD thing. Reality is winning and the bitter and angry crowd who get their facts from the bible or their gut whine and complain about not being popular enough.
And what does one say about this media:
Alabama newspaper calls for resurgence of KKK
Another yawner from the cornfields.
Liberal bias in the media? Imagine so. Most people are not anti-choice or pro Ku Kluxer. End of story.