"Scrubbed" Benghazi Docs "Bombshell" Is Based On Evidence-Free Report By Discredited Benghazi Hoax Architect
A new report from discredited investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson baselessly suggested State Department staff removed damaging documents on Benghazi instead of turning them over to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for investigation. But Attkisson’s claims have been denied by the State Department and are based solely on speculations from a disgruntled employee after he was disciplined for his “lack of leadership” and engagement by the ARB.
In a September 15 report for The Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation, Attkisson reported that a former State Department diplomat alleges that “Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to ’separate’ damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.” The Daily Signal described this as a “Benghazi Bombshell.”
Attkisson reported that the diplomat, Raymond Maxwell, a former deputy assistant secretary responsible for North Africa, says that in late 2012 he observed an “after-hours session” at which a State Department office director “close to Clinton’s top advisers” directed staff to separate out Benghazi documents “that might put anybody in the Near Eastern Affairs front office or the seventh floor in a bad light” from “boxes and stacks of documents.” Attkisson notes that “‘seventh floor’ was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors.” Maxwell told Attkisson that while he was present, Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan “appeared to check in on the operation and soon left.”
Speculating that potentially missing, possibly damaging documents made it impossible for the ARB’s investigation to be thorough, Attkisson reported that Maxwell said ”he couldn’t help but wonder if the ARB—perhaps unknowingly—had received from his bureau a scrubbed set of documents with the most damaging material missing.”
Fox News’ America’s Newsroom quickly reported Attkisson’s claims, calling them a “bombshell development” and a “smoking gun of a potential cover-up”:
Fox subsequently reported that the interview indicated that Maxwell “claims Clinton allies scrubbed Benghazi documents.”
But Attkisson’s report has several flaws. It is based solely on conjecture from Maxwell, who does not claim and cannot prove that any documents were withheld from the ARB in its investigation, but rather only speculates about the fate of the documents that were reviewed.
The State Department has already denied Maxwell’s speculation in a statement to Attkisson — State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach called “the implication that documents were withheld ‘totally without merit,’” emphasizing that the “range of sources that the ARB’s investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information.” Other allegations that the ARB investigation was biased have been repeatedly disproven.
Maxwell himself is a dubious source. He was placed on administrative leave after the Accountability Review Board’s investigation found a “lack of proactive leadership” and pointed specifically to Maxwell’s department, saying some officials in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs “showed a lack of ownership of Benghazi’s security issues.” A House Oversight Committee report released findings from the classified version of the ARB report, which revealed that the ARB’s board members “were troubled by the NEA DAS for Maghreb Affairs’ lack of leadership and engagement on staffing and security issues in Benghazi.”
Disgruntled over being “the only official in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which had responsibility for Libya, to lose his job,” Maxwell spoke to The Daily Beast in May 2013 in an attempt to “restore” his “honor.” Maxwell, who had filed official grievances regarding his treatment, expressed anger that Mills — the same staff member Maxwell speculated was involved in hiding potentially damaging documents — “reneged” on a deal to eventually bring Maxwell back to the NEA after his leave.
While Maxwell has previously been interviewed by the ARB, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Oversight Committee, the Daily Beast, and Examiner.com, this is curiously the first time this allegation has been made public. FoxNews.com reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) had confirmed “that Maxwell told him and other lawmakers the same story when they privately interviewed him last year.” The claim is absent from the House Oversight Committee’s Benghazi Attacks: Investigative Update Report on the Accountability Review Board, which was based in part on Maxwell’s 2013 testimony.
Attkisson, too, has been roundly discredited and is well known for her shoddy reporting, both during her time at CBS News and after leaving the network. Attkisson supported CBS’ disastrous Benghazi reporting, for which the network ultimately had to apologize and retract. And CBS executives reportedly saw her as “wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue.”
Fox’s adoption of this story as a major new development is not surprising given the network’s history of relying on discredited Benghazi hoaxsters and using “bombshell" to describe everything but new developments in the story.
Watch and learn, mainstream media: CBS anchors get an oil industry tycoon to admit “you’ve proven me wrong” on fracking dangers.
From the 07.08.2014 edition of CBS’ CBS This Morning:
CBS This Morning hosted its political analyst Frank Luntz to discuss House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s Republican primary loss to Dave Brat. An upset Luntz said that Cantor’s defeat was “a great loss not just for Virginia, but for the country.” But at no point did CBS News or Luntz disclose a major conflict of interest: Cantor has paid Luntz’s firm thousands of dollars for consulting.
Frank Luntz is the CEO of the political consulting firm Luntz Global (Luntz sold his majority stake in the company in January, but continues to serve as an executive). According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, Luntz Global has received over $15,000 in consulting fees since 2012 from Cantor for Congress: On February 27, Cantor paid Luntz Global $2,353 for “seminar expenses”; on December 12, Cantor paid Luntz Global $5,000 for “speech consulting”; on April 9, 2012, Cantor paid Luntz Global $8,000 for “speech writing.”
CBS This Morning hosts Norah O’Donnell and Charlie Rose did not note the CBS News political analyst’s financial connections to Cantor. Luntz hailed Cantor as a hero to the country whose loss shatters the “cooperation” between House Republicans and the White House. From the June 11 edition of CBS’ CBS This Morning:
LUNTZ: Well you had Eric Cantor, who had a very good relationship with Joe Biden. Had open lines of communication. I think for the GOP it’s going to be very dangerous now for a Republican to talk to Democrats, as it was Democrats to talk to Republicans a few years ago. That this a blow for conversation. This is a blow for some sort of cooperation and I think it’s bad for the country, not just bad for the Republicans.
LUNTZ: I think this is such a great loss not just for Virginia, but for the country. Eric Cantor had the ability to negotiate. Eric Cantor had the ability to sit toe to toe and make concessions and make agreements. And maybe that hurt him in the primary, but that’s exactly what we need in Washington, and now we’re losing him.
After Rose noted Cantor “was a pipeline to Wall Street too in raising money,” Luntz replied, “He was also a pipeline to Americans who just wanted people to get things done. And we’ve lost that leadership in Washington.”
In his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives, Robert Draper reported that Luntz orchestrated a 2009 meeting where prominent Republicans, including Eric Cantor, formulated a plan to win back Congress and the White House. He wrote: “Luntz had organized the dinner — telling the invitees, ‘You’ll have nothing to do that night, and right now we don’t matter anyway, so let’s all be irrelevant together.’ He had selected these men because they were among the Republican Party’s most energetic thinkers — and because they all got along with Luntz, who could be difficult.”
CBS News has repeatedly had disclosure problems with Luntz, who was hired by the network in 2012. When it first began hosting him, CBS couldn’t decide whether Luntz was an active Republican or a “former Republican” pollster and strategist (he’s active). Luntz also appeared on CBS during the 2012 campaign to discuss Republican vice presidential candidate and Rep. Paul Ryan without disclosing Luntz Global received money from Ryan’s congressional campaign.
Luntz’s lack of disclosure may violate CBS Corporation’s standards of conduct. The CBS Corporation Business Conduct Statement on conflicts of interest informs CBS employees, “including those employed on a temporary, freelance, intern, or per diem basis,” that “in all cases” they “must disclose all potential conflicts of interest” to CBS.
Former Bush speechwriter turned Washington Post op-ed writer Michael Gerson wants the viewers of CBS’ Face the Nation to believe that the members of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s unit that have been coming out in droves to attack him in the media would not have been doing so if the Obama administration hadn’t called his service “honorable.’
Never mind that Fox regular and former Bolton and Romney adviser, Richard Grenell’s PR firm is behind coordinating their media interviews, which I suspect had to be in the works well before President Obama or Susan Rice made any statements about the release and prisoner swap to the press, given how quickly they were ready to get them on the air.
No never mind that, the president made them do it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I must say that I— I do agree with Tom when he says, you know, we always have to go and get our people. We can never leave our people behind. But what happened after that is the part that I— I kind of have a problem with is this Rose Garden ceremony and all that. Michael, you were at the White House—
MICHAEL GERSON: Sure.
BOB SCHIEFFER: —how did that strike you?
Lara Logan is reportedly back at work at CBS News’ 60 Minutes after a six-month leave of absence, even as questions linger over the network’s investigation of her botched Benghazi report.
Logan and her producer Max McClellan took leaves of absence in November following an internal review into their October 27 report on the 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, which the network was forced to withdraw. Logan’s report was based on the unreliable testimony of an “eyewitness” named Dylan Davies and crumbled once it became clear that he had lied about being present at the besieged diplomatic compound during the attack, telling the FBI he had never been there. That triggered a firestorm of coverage, with media observers suggesting that the debacle had permanently damaged the brands of CBS News and 60 Minutes. The CBS internal review found that Logan’s story “was deficient in several respects.”
According to the Associated Press on June 4, “CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said Wednesday that Logan is back. She had no details on when the correspondent resumed work and what stories she is working on.”
In a statement, Media Matters founder David Brock said:
The flawed 60 Minutes report on Benghazi permanently damaged the credibility of both the show and of CBS. A New York magazine report made clear that a lion’s share of the blame for massive errors in that report belongs to Lara Logan. CBS indicated that they were serious about rebuilding its brand and taking accountability. Having Logan back on 60 Minutes shows the exact opposite.
Indeed, the May 2012 article in New York detailed how the Benghazi story got on the air, ultimately finding that internal CBS office politics allowed Logan’s personal credibility to stand in for standard fact-checking and basic reporting. New York also revealed new details about the process, many of which were inconsistent with CBS’ internal review, raising questions about the validity of that review and its scope. These inconsistencies include:
- While CBS’ internal review found that the 60 Minutes team interviewed State and FBI sources related to Davies’ story, New York reported that “no calls were made to the State Department or the FBI specifically to vet Davies’ claim.”
- While CBS’ internal review stated that reporters “with better access” to the FBI could have learned that Davies had told the agency he hadn’t witnessed the attack, New York revealed that one of Logan’s own sources on the story had access to that information.
- While CBS’ internal review found that a speech Logan gave criticizing the Obama administration’s tactics toward Al Qaeda had conflicted with “CBS News standards,” New York reported that Logan’s bosses had helped arrange the speech and that the president of CBS News was in the audience.
As Media Matters has documented, the New York article raised significant new questions that were not answered by the review, including why the review did not address the role played by executive editor Bill Owens, who reportedly vetted the piece, and whether CBS News was aware that Republican Senator Lindsay Graham was a major source for Logan as she developed the story.
h/t: Matt Gertz at MMFA
60 Minutes’ discredited piece on Benghazi has been deleted from the Lexis Nexis database “at the request of CBS News due to legal or copyright reasons.”
Lexis Nexis deleted the transcript from a 60 Minutes piece on the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya at the request of CBS News.
On October 27, 2013, CBS News correspondent Lara Logan ran a story on the popular television news program in which a former security contractor claimed he was at the U.S. diplomatic outpost when it was attacked, had himself attacked a supposed al-Qaeda operative and saw U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens’ dead body.
However, within days, various news outlets had not only discredited the contractor’s story, but also highlighted other false and misleading claims from Logan’s report. She subsequently apologized for the errors and the network asked Logan and a colleague who worked on the story to take a leave of absence.
The Logan saga was renewed on Sunday when New York Magazine published a lengthy story on Logan and the affair surrounding her Benghazi report. Notably, the piece reports that Logan met with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — who has led the charge in politicizing Benghazi, himself advancing numerous falsehoods about the attack — “two or three times to talk about the Libya attack.” Graham reportedly told Logan that “it was ‘a fair thing to say’ that there was a ‘build-up of Al Qaeda types’ in the area — a major talking point for the right in arguments that the Obama White House tried covering up alleged terrorist links.”
Soon after the report, Graham trumpeted it as a “death blow” to the White House’s Benghazi narrative.
But what did Logan’s report say about al-Qaeda’s role in the attack? CBS deleted the story and transcript from its website and searching the Lexis Nexis database will yield no results for a transcript of the report — that’s because, according Lexis Nexis, both the introduction to the story and the report itself have been “deleted at the request of CBS News due to legal or copyright reasons.” Here are screen shots from the search result for Logan’s report:
CREDIT: LEXIS NEXIS
CREDIT: LEXIS NEXIS
However, according to a web archive of the CBS News transcript, Logan reported last October that “it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaeda in a well-planned assault.” But the accuracy of that statement is still unclear. The New York Times reported in December that “Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”
Moreover, a Senate report released in January found that the attackers had links to some al-Qaeda groups, such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but it’s still unclear whether high level al Qaeda operatives planned the Benghazi operation.
Both 60 Minutes and Lexis Nexis did not respond to emails and phone calls regarding this matter at press time.
Source: Ben Armbruster for ThinkProgress
Eleven years ago, the 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan was sitting in the InterContinental hotel in Amman, Jordan, watching her career flash before her eyes.
She was 31 years old, a rookie at CBS News, assigned to cover the biggest story on earth: the invasion of Iraq. But nothing was going as planned. With only days until the American invasion, Logan had been forced to leave Baghdad and was desperate to get back before the war began, but she and her crew, because of the dangers of the imminent “shock and awe” bombing campaign, were forbidden from going by the network. That’s when she heard about a convoy of French reporters making the trek to Baghdad.
“She called me several times, begging to go with us,” recalls Laura Haim, a French TV journalist. But the French decided it was too dangerous having an American broadcaster onboard, even if she was South African. “I said, ‘No way.’ ” Fluent in three foreign languages, Logan begged in French.
Logan had labored tirelessly for this chance, spending several months in Kabul during the invasion of Afghanistan and heedlessly throwing herself into danger for the camera to deliver raw reportage to the CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes II, the spinoff version of the Sunday program. Her work had earned her notice at the highest levels of the network. CBS chairman and CEO Leslie Moonves, from his perch in Los Angeles, viewed her steely eyes, breathless delivery, and exotic accent as the raw material of a future star. So Logan had strategized with her agent to make the biggest possible splash in Baghdad—a replay of Christiane Amanpour’s star turn at CNN during the first Gulf War.
Days later, as American bombs rained down on Iraq, the French reporter was startled to see Lara Logan standing in the lobby of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. “Look, I made it!” she declared.
Two Iraqi fixers had smuggled her across the border, making her the only major American network-TV staff broadcaster in the country when the war began. “I was really impressed by her courage,” says Haim. “It was not bullshit. She really wanted to do things to make a name.”
Logan was launched. She became chief foreign correspondent in only three years and a top correspondent on 60 Minutes two years after that.
But last fall, after a deeply flawed 60 Minutes report on the attack in Benghazi, Libya, the trajectory of her career, along with that of CBS’s flagship news show, changed abruptly.
Logan and 60 Minutes had been searching for a new angle on the Benghazi story for the better part of a year, and finally one seemed to arrive. The break in the story came from a hulking, goateed former military contractor who called himself “Morgan Jones.” Jones, whose real name is Dylan Davies, told Logan an emotional tale of witnessing the attack firsthand—climbing an embassy wall in order to engage the combatants, then stepping into the breach as Washington dithered. Relentlessly hyped in the days leading up to the broadcast, the story fit broadly into the narrative the right had been trying for months to build of a White House and State Department oblivious to the dangers of Al Qaeda, feckless in their treatment of their soldiers and diplomats, then covering up their incompetence. It was soon revealed to be made up almost of whole cloth. Davies, who worked for a security firm called Blue Mountain, had invented the story to sell a book. For 60 Minutes and Logan, it was a stunning error, of a sort that can quickly corrode the brand of a show like 60 Minutes. And the scandal was an oddly precise echo of “Rathergate,” when Dan Rather, at the Wednesday edition of 60 Minutes in 2004, used memos of dubious provenance in a report on George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service.
In the aftermath of the Benghazi report, the problems with its sourcing were glaring, the kind that should have raised red flags. Logan’s interview subject happened to be selling a book on a politically conservative imprint owned by CBS News’s own parent company.
After defending the report for more than a week, Logan was forced to apologize and later take an indefinite leave of absence while CBS conducted an internal inquiry. Her colleagues, including veteran CBS correspondents Steve Kroft and Bob Simon, were apoplectic about the damage to 60 Minutes’ reputation. Morley Safer, the only founding member of the cast left on the 45-year-old program, went into the office of CBS News chairman and 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager’s office last fall and demanded that he fire Logan.
But Fager (who declined to comment for this story) refused. Instead, he said that Logan will return sometime this year. His decision sent a ripple of discontent through CBS News, prompting questions about Fager’s judgment. And as the months have rolled on, Logan’s return appears less and less certain.
Inside 60 Minutes, Logan’s flawed report is seen as the strongest evidence that the most celebrated news program in American TV history has lost its moorings under Fager, tarnished by the kind of partisanship the network has been at pains to avoid since Rather’s downfall.
In fact, one way of looking at Lara Logan’s rise at CBS is as an antidote to the network’s perceived bias. As a journalist, Logan is a product of the Bush years, her career defined by America’s Middle East wars and the military personnel and military contractors who were her sources and friends. For 60 Minutes, she delivered the kind of muscular reports that inoculated CBS against charges of a leftist agenda following the Rather incident, especially valuable in the patriotic climate after 9/11. She was part of the military culture, taking some of the same risks, imbibing its worldview. She also happened to have a telegenic sexual charisma, a highly useful attribute for a woman who wants to succeed in TV journalism. After Fager became chairman of the news division in 2011, he made Logan a permanent member of 60 Minutes, partly on the merit of her profiles of Navy seals and war generals, and partly out of corporate deference to Moonves’s enthusiasm for her.
As Logan rose, however, Fager was left to manage the risk inherent in Moonves’s asset. Logan had a zealousness that could cross the line into recklessness, a confidence that could come off as arrogance. A common view among current and former colleagues (keeping in mind that not-for-attribution backbiting and Schadenfreude are a stock-in-trade of TV news) is that Logan’s star power blinded her superiors to her flaws. “She got everything she wanted, always, even when she was wrong, and that’s been going on since the beginning,” says a former CBS News producer who worked with her.
And, with the wars finally winding down, the 2012 attack in Benghazi became the biggest journalistic prize, with the potential to bring down presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. It was the kind of story a reporter like Lara Logan would take risks to get.
“It’s not an accident that Lara Logan fucked up,” says a colleague at CBS News. “It was inevitable. Everybody saw this coming.”
If the Bush wars were what forged Logan as a journalist, what molded her as a person was a more intimate conflict. She came from a well-off South African family, one of three children, that was torn apart when her father, a textile importer, confessed to having a child by another woman when Logan was 8. The divorce devastated her mother and threw her family into disarray. “I learned about betrayal and dishonesty,” Logan once told a newspaper. “If I appear tough, it’s because I learned at an early age what it means to be vulnerable.”
Her father, perhaps guilty for what he’d done, treated Logan like a “princess,” she told a friend, adding, “I’ll always be a princess.”
She got her college degree in South Africa while working part time as a newspaper reporter and also earning money as a swimsuit model. In the mid-1990s, after a stint working for Reuters, she made her way to London. In the late ’90s, she worked as a stringer for CNN during the conflict in the Balkans, but she rarely got on the air, eclipsed by Amanpour, who Logan believed purposefully stifled her chances. Around the same time, she married an American who played in the British Basketball League.
Logan didn’t attract much attention until she began working for a “breakfast show” in Britain called GMTV. When Al Qaeda attacked New York on 9/11, prompting the invasion of Afghanistan, Logan realized that it was the story of her career. She persuaded her superiors to let her cover the war, and they assented. She flew to Afghanistan and ultimately made her way to Kabul, where she rented an apartment, hired her own driver and security man, and began chasing war stories. It was daring and dangerous work, especially for a Western woman in an Islamic country. She told a British tabloid that members of the Northern Alliance attempted to “have their way” with her. But Logan was unfazed. “I have men who work for me who would not go where she went,” says Peter McHugh, a former director of GMTV. “I was astonished. I was frightened for her and concerned for us.”
From the start, she had two qualities that seemed to mix profitably, if uneasily: exceptional courage—and, of course, her looks. In London, she’d become a local sensation when the tabloids published swimsuit pictures of her and dubbed her “34D Lara.” In 2002, British newspapers claimed she wore a low-cut top and “flashed her cleavage” at soldiers in Afghanistan. One story was titled “Put Those Bazookas Away, Lara.”
Logan protested these reports as sexist. But she was also open-eyed about the uses of sex in her profession—it was a tactic, and not to use it would be stupid. “Men play on the military thing, they play on the macho thing, they play on the brotherhood thing,” she told a reporter. “No one accuses them of using gender to their advantage. The fact is that sometimes being a woman can open doors for you, but more often than not it makes things more difficult.”
In truth, Logan understood the value of the publicity and regularly gave exclusives to theMirror, including one that read, “Here’s a sight that would stop the Taliban in its tracks. War reporter Lara Logan relaxes on a deck chair in a sizzling swimsuit.”
She told a friend that she once tipped off a photographer about her lingerie on a laundry line so he could take a picture.
This would be a theme in Logan’s career, how her beauty cut several ways. Men who did what Logan did in the war zone were hailed for bravery and virtuous machismo, while Logan was critiqued for the same thing. She deployed her beauty to charm and persuade colleagues and sources to great effect—but the effectiveness didn’t prevent co-workers and competitors from calling her a lightweight.
The trip to Kabul quickly paid dividends. Logan started reporting for CBS as a radio stringer. In November 2001, when the Taliban’s grip on the capital was loosened, there were no CBS reporters on hand except Lara Logan. She found a satellite and made a segment for the evening news. Producers in New York had never laid eyes on Logan, but when she appeared onscreen she instantly caught the attention of the executive producer of the CBS Evening News, Jim Murphy, who phoned CBS News president Andrew Heyward to alert him.
Initially, Heyward didn’t act on the tip—and was soon in the position of having to bid for her contract against every other network that noticed what Murphy noticed: a captivating beauty with a smoldering presence in the war zone. Logan was picked up by a powerful agent, Carole Cooper, and soon had a full-time contract at CBS for a reported $1 million, which included work at the Wednesday spinoff of 60 Minutes.
As Ed Bradley, the late 60 Minutes correspondent and a strong advocate of Logan’s, memorably if crudely observed, “She’s got tits and balls.”
But Logan was still a raw talent, inexperienced at storytelling and considered difficult by some producers. Her almost insatiable stomach for risk made many of her colleagues uncomfortable. One of her security detail was shot during a trip to Pakistan to see an Al Qaeda training camp. And Logan often flouted traditional Islamic dress codes: At an Afghan election rally for Hamid Karzai, Logan wore blue jeans and a white T-shirt in the makeshift press cordon, which was surrounded by mobs of men. Her crew became nervous, afraid she was attracting undue attention from the aggressive and all-male crowd. Logan herself seemed oblivious. When Karzai finished his speech and left, most of the security decamped and left Logan and her crew exposed to the crowd’s jeers. According to two people familiar with the incident, Logan’s crew had to surround her and “battle” their way to safety.
Other such incidents followed. After a time, cameramen in the London bureau of CBS News refused to work with her. “The crews in London revolted,” says a CBS executive. “They thought she was dangerous and she was going to get somebody killed.”
Logan had to combat considerable skepticism—and sexism—among veteran news people at CBS. Don Hewitt, the founder of 60 Minutes, had told a story of a time when Logan came to him for advice. He recounted that he told her she was not up to 60 Minutes’ standards and needed voice training to get rid of her accent. When she replied that she had been getting training for two years, he said simply, “Then there’s no hope.”
Hewitt refused to put her on the flagship program. Fager, Hewitt’s chosen successor, thought she needed work. And the executive producer of 60 Minutes II, Josh Howard, only gave her lightweight stories on the spinoff program. Says a former female CBS colleague: “She was a great-looking woman, which means you have to prove yourself doubly and triply.”
But even the skeptics had to admit she had an exceptional work ethic. “On any day, when the normal person put in 12 hours, Logan put in 20,” says a former CBS colleague. “She was passionate and indefatigable. She went after the story and had more heart for the story than many people in the organization.”
And just as important was the enthusiasm of Moonves. “The only person who pushed Lara on Don [Hewitt] was Les,” says a CBS staffer familiar with those events. “He said that Moonves loved her.”
Logan was not shy about letting people know she had a direct line to the boss. “She was very fond of saying, ‘I could end your career with a phone call,’ ” says a former CBS producer.
After the Iraq invasion, even Rather came to see her as a competitor, edging Logan off the air after the Iraqi capital was secured and he could safely broadcast from a fortified compound. When the story on prison abuses inside Abu Ghraib broke, Logan tried to cover it but was told to stand down—it was Rather’s story.
Rather, of course, was soon sidelined by Rathergate, which precipitated the end of his career and prompted a reorganization of the CBS News division that had the effect of buoying Logan’s career. Moonves appointed Sean McManus, a sports broadcasting executive, president of CBS News in 2005, and McManus immediately revamped the foreign coverage to make Logan a star correspondent.
Nobody thought of Lara Logan as particularly political, though producers and crew members I spoke with said she came to stories with strong biases, in keeping with the British press style she cut her teeth on. In some cases, her biases proved correct, like her insistence that Pakistan was a safe haven for terrorists, even as the U.S. government maintained that Pakistan was an ally. But Logan, and 60 Minutes, were partial to stories of military valor and combat—especially if Logan could co-star in them, which she often did, walking alongside generals and combat troops with whom she was embedded.
Her reputation began to precede her, not only within CBS, where she offended sensibilities by once showing up in a black bustier, but in the military camps where she courted sources. On a list of the top ten reasons to be deployed in Iraq that circulated among soldiers, “Lara Logan in a T-shirt” was ranked high. General David Petraeus had a picture of her in his office. Her proximity to the top brass and her devotion to military interests led to exclusives, like her 2006 interview with General John Abizaid, then the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, who described in emotional terms what it was like trying to manage a war with deteriorating support as Logan listened raptly.
Logan was soon running what amounted to her own CBS fiefdom in Baghdad. Her personal life was tightly woven into the tiny subculture of fellow foreign correspondents and the security contractors on whom they relied. Logan traveled with a team of former British special-forces soldiers employed by a security firm called Pilgrims Group, which guarded CBS’s bureau in Baghdad and ferried Logan to dangerous locales as well as more prosaic duties. She began an affair with Michael Ware, a swashbuckling correspondent for Time and CNN known for his emotional reportage from the streets of Baghdad.
Logan built a domestic existence in Washington, D.C., with Burkett, whom she married around the time they had their first child. But she regularly flew overseas for war stories and was on the front news lines of the uprisings in Egypt that were part of the Arab Spring. It was the kind of story Logan lived for, charged with danger and historic import. But now she was a mother, and the chaos in Egypt created a dangerous and fluid situation for journalists. In early February, when President Hosni Mubarak attempted to crack down on the press, Anderson Cooper reported on CNN the harrowing tale of being attacked by a mob. A day later, an ABC News crew was carjacked and threatened with beheading. Logan was warned not to leave her hotel.
“She was told 15 different ways: ‘Do not leave the hotel after curfew,’ and she did,” says a person familiar with the events that transpired next. On February 3, Logan was detained by Egyptian security forces. Her Egyptian driver was badly beaten. The next day, she and her producer, Max McClellan, left the country.
Logan campaigned to go back as soon as possible. And about a week after leaving, Logan flew back to Cairo, unable to resist covering the events in Tahrir Square, which was now a powerful 24/7 spectacle.
She would later recount what happened next: She and her crew began to receive verbal threats from the crowd, which grew increasingly restive and violent. Logan said she was separated from her handlers and then assaulted by a mob of men who ripped off her clothes and groped her. “I didn’t want to let go of him,” she said of her bodyguard. “I thought I was going to die if I lost hold of him.” She was separated from her crew for 25 minutes, until a group of women and some Egyptian soldiers in the square came to her rescue, she later said.
It was around this time that her political beliefs began to be expressed more openly. When the late Michael Hastings wrote a story in Rolling Stone about General Stanley McChrystal, exposing offhand criticisms of Barack Obama over Afghanistan and leading to the general’s ouster, Logan went on CNN to defend the general—and attack Hastings as a dishonest reporter who had tricked McChrystal. “I don’t go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else,” she said. “I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life.
“Michael Hastings,” she added, “has never served his country the way Commander McChrystal has.”
Her colleagues at CBS News were appalled by Logan’s foray into punditry. But Logan felt emboldened now, making sure to let people know that her war reporting made her a serious person. “I mean, politics are critically important, but it doesn’t burn that fire the way it does to be out there in the most impossible situation,” she said in an interview. “Doing something that is truly the difference between life and death.
“I’ve acquired a reputation for having some depth of knowledge,” she said.
Asked whether journalists should give their opinions, as Logan was doing, she said, “I think when you are asked for your opinions, you should be entitled to give it and not be vilified for giving it.”
Then, at a Chicago luncheon for the Better Government Association in October 2012, she gave a speech claiming the government was propagating a “major lie” about the strength of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight,” she said. “In your arrogance, you think you write the script.” The speech came on the heels of her report “The Longest War,” about General John Allen’s struggles in Afghanistan—and with his superiors in the Obama administration.
Among her colleagues at 60 Minutes, there was shock that Logan’s expression of her political opinions in public was met with no blowback from management. But it was her CBS bosses who had helped arrange the speech. While Logan spoke without notes, David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, was sitting in the audience listening.
Fager didn’t reprimand Logan. At the time, she was a bright spot for CBS news. She had top sources among the military brass, produced the kind of stories that kept 60 Minutes immune to criticism from the right (Rush Limbaugh hailed her Chicago speech), and was great on TV.
Fager himself had begun to realize that Logan was a risk to be managed. Before her infamous Benghazi report would air, Fager expressed fatalism about her: “Well, we’ve crossed the Rubicon,” he told a colleague.
“I think he meant it literally,” says a CBS insider. “We have passed the point of no return with her. We have created this, and now we have to live with this.”
As President Obama began to wind down American military involvement in the Middle East, both Logan and Burkett remained enmeshed in the social world of former and current military personnel. Burkett started a company with the wife of the man who owned Blue Hackle—which itself now has former general John Abizaid as a board member.
Logan did nonwar stories, but they didn’t garner the same kind of attention. Which is why the attack on Benghazi, with its echoes of 9/11, its cast of Muslim militiamen and shadowy U.S. operatives, offered a return to form. At the time of her speech in Chicago, she had already begun searching for an angle. And while she did so, none of the other 60 Minutes correspondents was allowed to pursue stories on Benghazi. “This was her story, and nobody could do anything on it,” says a 60 Minutes staffer.
Then, after months of Logan coming up empty, McClellan was offered an exclusive look at a book published by Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. Titled The Embassy House, it was written under a pseudonym: Morgan Jones, the cover for the former military contractor named Dylan Davies who purported to be an eyewitness to the Benghazi attack, complete with a ripping tale of smashing the face of an attacker with the butt of an AK-47 and seeing the dead body of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in the hospital.
Though CBS has said the segment was a year in the making, the book, which Logan and McClellan had obtained in late spring 2013, would become the majority of the broadcast. Which is why it was unusual that the weekend the report aired, four months after getting the book, the 60 Minutes staff treated it like a breaking-news story being assembled in haste, working after hours to get it ready.
Fager delegated the details of vetting the piece to Owens, whom he’d groomed to be his successor at 60 Minutes but whom some CBS colleagues felt was stretched thin by his duties. Because of the short deadline, and because it was a book by a sister company, 60 Minutes’usual fact-checking procedures were not followed. No calls were made to the State Department or the FBI specifically to vet Davies’s claims.
Benghazi had been thoroughly politicized from the beginning. But rather than steering clear of the political battle, Logan headed right toward it, consulting with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a strong critic of the administration’s handling of the incident whom she’d met once in Afghanistan. “I really didn’t know her until she started doing this piece on Benghazi,” he told me.
The two met two or three times to talk about the Libya attack, with Graham telling Logan that from his point of view, it was “a fair thing to say” that there was a “build-up of Al Qaeda types” in the area—a major talking point for the right in arguments that the Obama White House tried covering up alleged terrorist links.
Graham declared Logan’s report the “death blow” to the Obama administration’s narrative about Benghazi. But doubts about Davies surfaced quickly. The night of the broadcast, October 27, former State Department officials under Hillary Clinton were watching the program with antennae up and exchanged emails. “I think he’s lying his head off about where he was and what he did,” wrote one former official about the man calling himself Morgan Jones. “I mean, 14 months later we’re hearing about this guy for the first time?” The episode set up the inevitable political face-off. The Washington Post soon revealed that Davies had told his own firm, Blue Mountain, a different story.
In the previous months, Logan had been distracted, dealing with an alarming health issue: a diagnosis of breast cancer. She told Esquire magazine, “I think that scarred me worse than what happened in Egypt.”
And the Saturday night after the broadcast, Logan made a reference to her Benghazi report while in Buffalo receiving the Gilda Radner Courage Award. “People are saying to me, ‘You have to prioritize your health,’ ” she said to the attendees, “and I’m like, ‘I have to prioritize my health, but if I fuck this up, I don’t have a career, you know?’ ”
The next week, Logan defended criticism of her report, telling Bill Carter of the New York Times she regretted that 60 Minutes didn’t acknowledge that Davies was selling a book on a right-wing imprint by CBS’s parent company. But, she said, “we killed ourselves not to allow politics into this report.” Two days later, the Times revealed that Davies’s statements to the FBI contradicted what he had told 60 Minutes.
At one point, Logan called Graham and asked for help. “She called afterward and basically said, ‘What did he tell the FBI?’ ” he recalls. “I’ve never seen the FBI interview, but I talked to the No. 2, who is now gone, and he said that he’s looked at the interviews and the guy never mentioned this.”
The next day, November 8, Simon & Schuster announced it was pulling the book out of circulation. Faced with overwhelming evidence that Davies had lied to Logan, Logan went on CBS This Morning and admitted, “We were wrong.”
Fager commissioned an internal investigation to clear the air after calling the segment “as big a mistake as there has been.” The report was drawn up by Al Ortiz, an executive director. Ortiz noted that Davies had confessed to 60 Minutes that he lied to Blue Mountain about his whereabouts on the night of the Benghazi attack, which should have been a “red flag.”
“The fact that the FBI and the State Department had information that differed from the account Davies gave to 60 Minutes was knowable before the piece aired,” he wrote.
Ortiz concluded that Logan’s speech in Chicago conflicted with CBS News standards and that the segment should have been clear about the source of the information behind its claim that Al Qaeda propagated the attack.
Now the news division is wracked by soul searching. “The party line that Jeff is taking—‘She’s got to make amends for her transgression’—is to perpetuate the fiction that these pieces belong to the correspondents,” says Steven Reiner, a former 60 Minutes producer who once worked with Logan, “which 60 Minutes has to perpetuate. She’s got to take the hit. But he’s really saying, ‘We failed her; the system failed her.’ ”
During an internal teleconference, Moonves expressed shock that Fager had not continued the practice of having an outside screener before airtime, the one-time role of Linda Mason, according to a person familiar with his comment. (That role has since gone to Ortiz.)
The day the report was made public, Fager announced that Logan and McClellan would be put on indefinite leave of absence. But following quickly on the heels of the Benghazi report, a series of 60 Minutes segments came under fire, starting with a positive profile of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos by Charlie Rose and a report on the NSA by correspondent John Miller that hewed closely to the NSA’s public-relations message. Both segments shared a similar critique: The show was going soft, selling its airtime for exclusive access.
But Fager has been loath to admit further weakness. “His attitude is always ‘Fuck them, we’re 60 Minutes,’ ” says a former producer on the program. “ ‘And we’re the greatest thing in the world.’ ”
The atmosphere at CBS has been toxic in recent months. Producers and correspondents tell me they do not feel empowered to voice criticism. In the course of reporting this story, two people purporting to be staffers from the show sent me anonymous messages to express unhappiness about both Logan and Fager.
Fager has tried to keep Logan out of the spotlight: In recent months, she was scheduled to give several speeches for the Greater Talent Network, some paying as much as $50,000, but was advised by CBS to cancel the appointments. Other 60 Minutes correspondents filled in for her. Fager also took down his framed “Sexty Minutes” story. Logan has spent recent weeks in her house in Washington, D.C., “losing her mind” and “stressing out of her head,” according to one CBS source. Carole Cooper, her agent, who is married to Fager’s agent, Richard Leibner, has maintained a precarious negotiation with Fager over Logan’s return to60 Minutes, which in recent weeks has not appeared certain.
And what about Les Moonves? A well-placed source at CBS suggests that he has soured on Logan. Through a spokesman, Moonves declined to comment.
So Lara Logan may, or may not, return in the fall season. Either way, the show must go on. Waiting in the wings is a new up-and-comer. Attractive, blonde, fluent in three foreign languages. Everybody is talking about 34-year-old Clarissa Ward. “Jeff’s very high on her,” says a 60 Minutes producer.
Fringe Radio Host Bryan Fischer Praises Sharyl Attkisson For Taking "The Underground Railroad Off The Plantation"
Radio host Bryan Fischer — a hateful, anti-gay conspiracy theorist — used his show to praise former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson for having “taken the Underground Railroad” off the ”media plantation.”
Sharyl Attkisson, a former CBS reporter with a history of shoddy journalism, has recently made the media rounds alleging (without evidence) that she was the victim of liberal political bias during her time at the network. Attkisson’s allegations of bias have since been embraced by conservative media outlets.
She found a new ally today in Fischer, who devoted a segment of his radio program to playing clips of her recent appearance on CNN’s Reliable Sources (during which she floated an absurd conspiracy about Media Matters being paid to attack her work).
Fischer introduced the segment by explaining that it’s “obvious” the media is “biased” in various ways, including “toward the homosexual agenda.” According to Fischer the mainstream media is “nothing more than a propaganda arm for liberals in politics, and for the Obama administration in the current circumstances.”
Turning to Attkisson’s exit from CBS, Fischer explained, “Occasionally, you will have somebody that will escape from the plantation. They will get on the Underground Railroad and they will surface free from the restraints and the chains of the liberal media plantation. And that’s happened to Sharyl Attkisson.”
Fischer went on to praise Attkisson as a “very good reporter for CBS News,” and someone who was “doing good journalistic work on the Benghazi deal.”
He later returned to his slavery comparisons, calling mainstream reporters “slaves to promote the liberal agenda” and again celebrated Attkisson for having “taken the Underground Railroad off the plantation.”
Fischer is an anti-gay bigot and conspiracy theorist who has claimed, among many other things, that ”Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.” He has also warned that the military is being trained to use “lethal force” on conservative and Christian groups; called on the government to prohibit mosques from being built in the United States; and lamented that U.S. does not have similar ant-gay laws as those recently enacted in Russia.
h/t: Ben Dimiero at MMFA
According to Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the current Archbishop of New York, women don’t need insurance coverage for birth control because they can purchase it at “any shop on the street,” including a gas station like 7-11.
Dolan appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation over the weekend to defend for-profit companies’ right to deny birth control coverage to their workers, an issue that’s at the heart of a pending Supreme Court case. The archbishop argued that the most prominent plaintiff in that suit, Hobby Lobby, should have the right to refuse contraceptive coverage to thousands of its employees based on the owners’ religious beliefs.
When asked whether allowing for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby to claim religious liberty could set a “dangerous precedent” for the rest of the country, Dolan deferred, claiming it’s not a problem because birth control is already widely accessible.
“Is the ability to buy contraceptives, that are now widely available — my Lord, all you have to do is walk into a 7-11 or any shop on any street in America and have access to them — is that right to access those and have them paid for, is that such a towering good that it would suffocate the rights of conscience?” Dolan said in an exchange uploaded by Raw Story. “I don’t think so. I hope the Supreme Court agrees.”
Dolan is likely referring to the male condom, which is typically available for purchase at gas stations. But that’s not what’s up for debate in the Hobby Lobby case. Hobby Lobby’s owners object to Obamacare’s contraception mandate, which requires employers to cover the full range of FDA-approved birth control methods at no additional charge to their workers, because they believe emergency contraception and certain types of IUDs are “abortion-inducing drugs.” That’s not scientifically true, but Hobby Lobby is seeking an exemption to this Obamacare provision anyway.
Despite Dolan’s assumption that women can simply walk into a store and buy the type of birth control they need, a Hobby Lobby win could seriously compromise women’s access to reproductive health care. The majority of women in the U.S. opt to use the birth control pill as their primary method of contraception, which requires a doctor’s visit and a prescription. Nearly 60 percent of women have used hormonal contraception for a medical reason other than avoiding a pregnancy, which means that a condom definitely won’t cut it. And this is a serious medical expense for women, running up more than $1,000 per year on average.
As women in the U.S. are increasingly delaying marriage and childbirth, they need access to reliable birth control more than ever before. There’s a widening gap between the time when women first become sexually active and when they want to have their first child. The typical American woman spends more than three quarters of her reproductive life trying to avoid pregnancy — and, when women successfully prevent unintended pregnancies, it saves the government money and reduces the need for abortion services.
The Catholic Church has been one of the primary opponents of Obamacare’s birth control coverage, so it’s no surprise that Dolan — who is notoriously conservative — is speaking out in favor of Hobby Lobby. But there’s evidence that the Catholic leadership doesn’t actually reflect its constituents on this issue. Most religious Americans use hormonal contraception at the same rates as non-religious Americans do, and more than 80 percent of U.S. Catholics believe that birth control is “morally acceptable.” Recent global polls of the world’s Catholics have found that the vast majority of respondents support birth control.
Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson is augmenting her campaign to paint herself as a victim of liberal media bias with conspiratorial and false attacks on Media Matters.
Earlier this year Attkisson, who had been celebrated by conservative activists for her often shoddy reporting on the Obama administration, ended her two-decade career at CBS News. She has since made numerous media appearances, often on Fox News, claiming that her reporting had been curtailed by CBS managers who opposed critical reporting on the administration. As Media Matters noted last week, Attkisson has provided little to no evidence to support her broad claims that politics, rather than newsworthiness, was keeping her stories off CBS’ air.
Attkisson responded during an April 20 appearance on CNN’s Reliable Sources. After Attkisson claimed that there is a “campaign by those who really want to controversialize the reporting I do,” host Brian Stelter asked, “Media Matters has been campaigning against you and saying you’ve been inaccurate in your reporting, is that what they’re doing? They’re just trying to controversialize the issue?” Attkisson responded that she had been “targeted” by Media Matters and hinted at a motive, saying, “I don’t know if someone paid them to do it or they just took it on their own.” After Stelter asked her whether she really believed Media Matters had been paid to target her, she responded, “Perhaps, sure. I think that’s what some of these groups do, absolutely.”
Attkisson’s claims quickly found a ready audience on Fox News.
But Attkisson’s claims are false. Media Matters has never taken contributions to target her or any other reporter. We have published research on her reports on green energy and Obamacare, among other topics, when those reports have been inaccurate or misleading — the same standard to which we hold any other reporter.
Attkisson decided to float this conspiracy theory without any evidence during an appearance on a news program, suggesting that she doesn’t believe she needs to prove her contentions before bringing them to a national audience. If that was the reporting standard she sought to uphold at CBS News, it’s no wonder that her managers were unwilling to let her promote half-baked conspiracies on their airwaves.
From the 04.20.2014 edition of CNN’s Reliable Sources:
Stop whining, Sharyl!
h/t: Matt Gertz at MMFA
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn disgraces our country yet again by defending the GOP’s blocking of Paycheck Fairness Act
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asserted over the weekend that the Republican Party was the party of “women’s equality” days after Senate Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act. In a party line Senate vote last week, Republicans refused to…
In a stunning exercise in false equivalence, Fox News accused CBS News of maintaining a disciplinary double standard after it suspended correspondent Lara Logan for her botched 60 Minutes Benghazi report but continues to employ an analyst that Fox erroneously suggested was part of a Benghazi talking points conspiracy to provide political cover to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
On April 2, according to ABC News, former CIA deputy director, Michael Morell testied again before the House Intelligence Committee regarding the 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
Fox News used today’s hearing as a launching point to spin its latest already-debunked Benghazi conspiracy, hosting Lt. Tony Schaffer on the April 2 edition of Fox & Friends to push allegations that Morell deliberately omitted the truth about the Benghazi attacks from talking points later used by the administration in return for a consulting position with a firm ostensibly close to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Fox used the trumped up allegation to call for Morell’s suspension from his position as an analyst for CBS, citing suspended CBS correspondent Lara Logan’s botched and retracted 60 Minutes Benghazi report as a comparison. Fox co-host Steve Doocy accused CBS of maintaining a “crazy double standard” for disciplining Logan but not Morell:
DOOCY: Also what’s interesting is Mike Morell also works for CBS. He’s a consultant. Lara Logan, as you will recall, was fired or suspended from 60 Minutes for simply interviewing somebody who told a story that was not accurate.
Mike Morell is a consultant an analyst on CBS and it looks like he lied to congress. It looks like CBS has got a crazy double standard.
Doocy’s attempt to equate a Fox conspiracy theory about Morell’s actions and motivations with Logan’s now-infamous breaches of ethics and journalistic standards is staggering, as the two circumstances bear no resemblance. The allegations against Morrell have been repeatedly debunked, while Logan’s 60 Minutesreport on Benghazi that featured questionable source, Dylan Davies, whose credibility has since crumbled, led to an internal investigation resulting in the retraction of the report, an apology from Logan, and the subsequent leave of absence of Logan and her producer, Max McClellan.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Sunday charged President Barack Obama with “emboldening the Taliban,” citing details from a new book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that harshly criticizes the president’s leadership in the war in Afghanistan.
"I don’t think we can ignore what’s in that book, and I think for many of us it confirms our worst fears," Rubio said on CBS’ "Face the Nation." "And that is that this is an administration full of people that either have the wrong convictions or, in the case of former Secretary Clinton, lack the courage of her convictions."
Rubio pointed to parts of Gates’ book that suggest Obama didn’t feel that the war in Afghanistan was his war, and that his decision to pull out troops was political.
"You saw that reflected in the decision that [Obama] made," Rubio continued. "At the same time that he announced the surge, he also announced an exit date and strategy, thereby emboldening the Taliban to believe they could wait us out.”
The Florida senator, whose name has been floated as a 2016 presidential contender, said Obama’s actions on Afghanistan have had international repercussions.
"Our allies see us as unreliable, and our enemies feel emboldened," Rubio said. "I think that this confirms our worst fears, that this is an administration that lacks a strategic foreign policy and, in fact, is largely driven by politics and tactics."
Source: The Huffington Post
Things continue to get worse for 60 Minutes' already retracted Benghazi report and its discredited “eyewitness” Dylan Davies. Gawker's J.K. Trotter reports that CBS News and Simon & Shuster may have failed to properly vet significant “discrepancies” in Davies’ accounts of his military background.
60 Minutes' October 27, 2013, segment about the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, collapsed after it was revealed that Davies had given conflicting accounts of his actions that night. CBS News eventually pulled the segment and released a “journalistic review” finding that the report was “deficient in several respects” and “did not sufficiently vet Davies’ account of his own actions and whereabouts that night.” Correspondent Lara Logan and producer Max McClellan were put on a leave of absence.
Two days after the 60 Minutes report aired, Simon & Schuster imprint Threshold Editions — which is owned by CBS Corporation, a blatant conflict of interest — released The Embassy House under the Davies pseudonym Morgan Jones. The book was pulled from shelves shortly after CBS retracted its segment, but a number of inconsistencies in the book have raised questions about whether Davies’ publishers and CBS Newsadequately vetted Davies before promoting his dubious story.
Gawker’s J.K. Trotter has uncovered further discrepancies in Davies’ account, this time related to claims about his military service. Trotter notes that while Simon & Schuster highlight the rank of “Sergeant Morgan Jones,” “there is zero evidence Davies obtained the rank of sergeant in the British Army.” Furthermore, “Davies and his editors seem to disagree about the length of his military service.” During the book Davies claims to have served for fourteen years, but the book’s jacket and website both say he served for only twelve — “So either Davies is lying about his enlistment date, or Threshold Editions is lying about their own author.”
Trotter also revealed that no one at Threshold Editions or 60 Minutes appears to have verified Davies’ claim that he worked on the security detail of U.S. Major General James T. Conway.
In a long Facebook post, gay CBS anchor Itay Hod has essentially outed Republican Congressman Aaron Schock on the grounds of hypocrisy. While Hod frames the post as a hypothetical exploration of when outing is appropriate, he provides lots of details and concludes with an ostentatiously “unrelated” link to the 7 gayest Instagram Photos of Aaron Schock from 2013.
Hod is clearly fed up with Schock and perhaps just as much with his colleagues in the media who knowingly play along with closet cases.
what if you know a certain GOP congressman, let’s just say from Illinois, is gay… and you know this because one of your friends, a journalist for a reputable network, told you in no uncertain terms that he caught that GOP congressman and his male roommate in the shower… together. now they could have been good friends just trying to conserve water. but there’s more. what if this congressman has also been caught by tmz cameras trolling gay bars. now what if you know that this very same guy, the darling of the gop, has also voted against repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, opposed the repeal of doma, is against gay marriage; and for the federal marriage amendment, which would add language to the us constitution banning gay marriage and would likely strike down every gay rights law and ordinance in the country?
Are we still not allowed to out him?
let me ask another question… doesn’t the media have an OBLIGATION to expose his hypocrisy? if he had done something so hypocritical and he wasn’t gay, wouldn’t we demand journalists do their job? but they can’t… because we won’t let them. you’re not allowed to out ANYONE, we tell them.
Schock has long been the subject of rumors about his sexual orientation. He has always claimed he is straight (although his wardrobe is not). Schock didn’t boost his heterosexual cred any by posing for a series of shirtless images showing off his abs for Men’s Health.
Just to show he straight he is, Schock has accumulated an antigay record that ranks with the best of the homophobes. He has opposed marriage equality, protections for same-sex bi-national couples, and repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, just to name a few, earning him a stellar 0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.
At the same time that he’s voting to deny the LGBT community its rights, Schock has, as AmericaBlog points out, created one of the gayest Instagram accounts ever. Although he follows only 71 people on Instagram, one of them is 19-year-old Olympic diver Tom Daley, presumably so that Schock can solicit his views on Midwest agricultural policy. Openly gay conservative Josh Barro tweeted that fact without comment. None is needed.