Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:24 PM ET, 02/18/2011

More on Al-Jazeera's silence on Lara Logan

By Jonathan Capehart

In an internal e-mail two days ago, Heather Allan, head of news gathering for Al Jazeera English, based in Doha, Qatar, answered, "No, we're not," to the question "Lara Logan: Are we reporting this?" So I asked her why. Allan was kind enough to respond.

The attack on Ms. Logan was shocking and brutal. Many journalists were attacked, detained and beaten. These incidents were mentioned in our reporting but were not the focus of our output. We believe, as a general rule, that we are not the story. When CBS issued their statement about the attack, they specifically asked the press to respect her privacy and that of her family. That's what we opted to do.

Al Jazeera's silence on Lara Logan has been deafening. And while I appreciate Allan getting back to me, her explanation rings a tad hollow. She writes that journalists "are not the story." But the Web site of Al Jazeera English ran an excellent story on Feb. 3 headlined, "Media in the line of fire in Egypt: Domestic and foreign journalists have come under siege amid the turmoil in Egypt." And when CBS News asked that the press respect Logan's privacy, the network wasn't asking that the story not be covered. After all, its own statement revealed details of the attack -- albeit days later.

Lara_Logan_244x183.jpg

Logan's assault hasn't gone completely unremarked upon on Al Jazeera. As @billiegirltoo informed me on Twitter last night, the network's live blog on Feb. 16 reported the CBS News statement, embedded the video report from the Associated Press and carried the Tweet from a former colleague of Logan's expressing his "condolences" for what happened to her. Other than that, nothing. No television story. No online story.

Nevermind that what happened to Logan IS a story. Leave aside the fact that she is a correspondent for an American broadcaster. How about the fact that a woman could be swarmed by a mob of 200 people, attacked and sexually assaulted and was only saved by the actions of a group of women and 20 Egyptian soldiers? Was Logan the only one? Is that not newsworthy? I'm at a loss for what would drive a news network to ignore news.

Al Jazeera English saw its coverage of the historic events in Cairo as an opportunity to open doors to wider access to the American television market. It ran ads in The Post and The New York Times last week asking their new fans to "call your local cable operator to request AJE." But given Al Jazeera's treatment of the Logan story, why should they? The network's mantra is "The heart of the story. Every Angle. Every Side." That's less believable now.

By Jonathan Capehart  | February 18, 2011; 4:24 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tyranny in Wisconsin, part 3
Next: Wisconsin: Dueling statistics about public employees

Comments

Only if they covered the death of every single Egyptian in those crowds -- and covered the beatings of all the other journalists -- should this be a story.

Give it a rest.

Posted by: Victoria27 | February 18, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Is conservative revulsion over the public gang-rape *tournante* on CBS's Lara Logan a case of "Islamophobia"? or did a willfully blind culture of "Candorphobia" cause CBS executives to wrecklessly endanger their reporter?

*See "Battered Westerner Syndrome"
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0802/steyn1.asp

This phenomenon must be confronted candidly if the media hope to learn anything from these incidents.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 18, 2011 5:42 PM | Report abuse

You sure the Post's and other MSM interest isn't a combination of:

We're the world's most important institution syndrome
Attractive white women in peril syndrome
Indian bus plunge syndrome (how many dead Egyptians got named on-air?)

Posted by: WmarkW | February 18, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Islam apparently doesn't do any better than other religions at encouraging moral behavior, so what excuse does this pack of uncivilized savages have to justify their abhorrent behavior? Most of them may be named Mohammad, but it took Arab women to help this woman, savagely attacked, to escape these sick Muslim savages.

Posted by: paulusarchitect | February 18, 2011 7:03 PM | Report abuse


YEssss.... Capehart.

Every raped woman must call you and tell you all about it.

You're ENTITLED because you work for the Washington Post, with it's own agenda, which isn't the truth or news...

Or because you're so dmned important?

Posted by: whistling | February 18, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Enough! Leave this for Nancy [Dis]Grace's show.

Didn't thousands of people get killed/brutalized/beat down in Egypt in the same melee? What makes Logan's (alleged) assault more important than other violent incidents? How is Logan different from the other ...? Oh yeah, we know.

Might have missed it, but we have yet to read a single media account providing details of the alleged "sexual assault" of Logan.

Is this going to be like the Jessica Lynch story where the original "POW hero" media narrative fell apart once challenged by, er, ... the facts? Just askin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 18, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

The public, celebratory gang rape of Lara Logan was ignored by the American media for days while the Tahir Square Islamist thugs were described as pro-democracy demonstrators. Maybe it's time to identify these anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-Jew, misogynistic creeps for what they are. Maybe it's time to admit the western media including the Post blew the story and followed a template true only their imagination.

Posted by: jy151310 | February 18, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Just saw a post on Salon questioning the media narrative regarding Logan. Some say the whole "brutal sexual assault at the hands of a horde of swarthy 'savages' too horrible to detail for the public" story may be starting to leak oil.

BTW, wasn't this the plot of the film, "Birth of a Nation"?

Ashley Todd
Susan Smith
Jessica Lynch...
Who knows?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 18, 2011 10:03 PM | Report abuse

The Wall Street Journal is reporting Logan wasn't raped. IF that's so, it would appear the media's original "rape" story that got everybody worked up was ... a hoax.

Ashley Todd, Susan Smith, Jessica Lynch, move over to make room for one more.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 18, 2011 11:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm at a lose to understand Capehart's ready dismissal of the reasons given by Al Jazeera's spokeswoman for not doing more the story. CBS did not run the story for 4 days. Its not easy to dismiss the public shaming and stigmatisation of a colleague which is what happens to a woman who has been raped. Possibly, moreso in Egypt.

Posted by: fyonista | February 18, 2011 11:58 PM | Report abuse


And where is WP headlines on Obama casting the sole vote to declare Israeli land theft legal? What are you afraid of? Waking up the American sheep???

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 19, 2011 1:04 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Victoria27, give it a rest.

In addition, I watch Al Jazeera English and in my opinion the news coverage is much better than any of the U.S. news organizations. It has much more wider ranging coverage of events from all over the world, not just the latest crisis.
The reporting is also much more in depth than I find elsewhere.

Posted by: Artimuss | February 19, 2011 2:33 AM | Report abuse

Crock. When back in January the female Al Jazeera reporter was required by the Israeli security service to remove her bra for inspection before going into a breefing by the Prime Minister, the stink went up to high heavens both on AJ English and Arabic. But, of course, that was about infidel Jews groping a saintly Muslim woman. Don't kid yourself - Al-Jazeera is an Iranian tool, paid by Qatar and aimed at toppling all pro-American regimes in the Middle East and inciting a new war with Israel.

Posted by: arik67 | February 19, 2011 3:01 AM | Report abuse

Yes I am disappointed that Al Jazeera didn't cover that story very well at all. But living in Canada I am lucky enough to get their network and their coverage of the Middle East crisis has been excellent. Better than any US network, although I have to say that apart from Wolf Blitzer's inane rants CNN did quite well.
If you want to understand the Middle East it is crucial to watch Al Jazeera or at least go on its website.

Posted by: distin99 | February 19, 2011 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Al-Jazeera? But CBS did not report it?!

Posted by: FrankTrades | February 19, 2011 5:45 AM | Report abuse

Hmm, kinda like you ignoring every bad thing the dems do everyday. I imagine it's what most of you do "We believe we are not the story," its EVERYBODY ELSE who is wrong/bad/corrupt.

Posted by: dcjayhawk2 | February 19, 2011 7:13 AM | Report abuse

You said "a woman" was attacked by a mob of "200," but the original story said the whole news crew was attacked by this group and Logan was then pulled aside by some of that group. Having seen a melee develop in a flash from a single angry exchange at a football game, it's not difficult to imagine something like this happening. But what, exactly, did happen? Where does the "200" figure come from? Considering the ubiquity of cell phones and cameras, I would not be surprised if video of the incident emerges at some point.

Posted by: mullingitover1 | February 19, 2011 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Here's the answer.

Lara Logan was a celebrity of sorts--a very public figure, albeit partly because of her good looks. When a celebrity is sexually assaulted by a mob it is news.

However, in a responsible journal, and when it is part of a much larger story, it need not and should not be more than a news "item". It should be reported briefly and factually. Then let the running dogs of the tabloids exploit it all the public can stand.

Al Jazeera's decision not to the report the attack was a political, not a journalistic or editorial decision. They are dishonest to maintain otherwise. But Al Jazeera is inevitably and not infrequently dishonest because they are in fact driven by a political point of view.

Posted by: Roytex | February 19, 2011 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Could it be Al Jazeera English knew the "brutal gang rape" story smelled from the get-go? But they realized they couldn't expose it as bogus, fearing the wrath of the U.S. corporate media, which had heavily invested in the non-fact-based "rape" narrative. Looks like Al Jazeera English guessed right: the Wall Street Journal and other media have reported there was no rape, much less gang rape. And some are now asking whether even an assault (as opposed to the "roughing up" that everybody in the area experienced) occurred.
_____________

Report the facts, leave the other stuff for Fox and Nancy Grace.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 19, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

This is a very silly story. Very few people outside the United States has ever heard of Lara Logan, so why should Al Jazeera give her any more coverage than any other harassed journalist? Do you imagine we watch CBS in the Middle East? Why would we do that when we have much better sources of information relevant to us? The fuss about this is just another example of US myopia and narcissism. The same happened with Anderson Cooper, when he was punhced in the streets of Cairo. He said he thought maybe they recognised him! I imagine about 10 people in Cairo watch CNN, mostly businessmen in hotel rooms. What giant egos these people have and how foolish they appear from afar.

Posted by: jonathanwright1 | February 19, 2011 8:58 AM | Report abuse

This is a very silly story. Very few people outside the United States has ever heard of Lara Logan, so why should Al Jazeera give her any more coverage than any other harassed journalist? Do you imagine we watch CBS in the Middle East? Why would we do that when we have much better sources of information relevant to us? The fuss about this is just another example of US myopia and narcissism. The same happened with Anderson Cooper, when he was punhced in the streets of Cairo. He said he thought maybe they recognised him! I imagine about 10 people in Cairo watch CNN, mostly businessmen in hotel rooms. What giant egos these people have and how foolish they appear from afar.

Posted by: jonathanwright1 | February 19, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

@jonathanwright1:

Co-sign with one exception: The Logan matter is not a silly story, it's a NON-story. It certainly appears, according to later fact-based reporting, that almost all the important "FACTS" of the original Logan "story" were simply untrue, e.g., the gang rape.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 19, 2011 9:05 AM | Report abuse

If a Moslem woman had been gang-raped at a Tea Party rally, would that have made the news?

Posted by: ddaly7 | February 19, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Capehart " BURIES " the REAL Logan story then asks why Al Jazzera BURIED it too?

OMG!!!


The Logan story is this - why did CBS bury it for days? Didn't fit the " feel good " narrative of Tahrir square? If Logan would have saved an Egyptian woman of a similar fate does CBS report it? YES!! If Logan had been attacked a few days prior by Mubarak thugs? Yes....with hospital interviews!!
Reporters willingly became the story...she wasn't attacked jogging in Central Park - that is PERSONAL. Her attack was NOT and was buried because it didn't fit the MSM cheerleading narrative. He gets it...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0211/ahlert.php3

Reporters or Narrative Shapers?

Any Journalists out there?

p

Posted by: whypromote | February 19, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

No, whypromote, there aren't any journalists out there--in the mainstream media (let alone Al Jazeera). A real journalist wouldn't play ball and so wouldn't be employed long. That is why journalism is held in ill repute by the public, which remarkably still gets some things right.

Posted by: Roytex | February 19, 2011 11:19 AM | Report abuse

How come Capehart and others failed to make mention of the report that the mob was chanting, "Jew! Jew!" as the woman reporter ws assaulted?

Posted by: sailhardy | February 19, 2011 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Reporters, many with the illogical, bleeding heart beliefs of wanting to save the world or make it a better place. Well, hate to disillusion you fools. MOST people could care about your beliefs, especially out side the USA. This act was reprehensible, BUT just because she was a journalist, doesn't warrant extra special coverage. Get over yourselves, media. You aren't that important or special

Posted by: nomobarry | February 19, 2011 11:36 AM | Report abuse

How come Capehart and others failed to make mention of the report that the mob was chanting, "Jew! Jew!" as the woman reporter ws assaulted?

Posted by: sailhardy | February 19, 2011 11:34 AM |
=============================================

He, He, He I think you made that up, what a tool.

Posted by: knjincvc | February 19, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how this is much of a story outside the U.S.

At least one Egyptian reporter was killed by pro-Mubarak forces; how much coverage did that get here? Other foreign reporters have been seriously injured; how much coverage has that received in the U.S.?

I think Mr. Capehart is jumping onto Richard Cohen's pathetic bandwagon here.

Posted by: Itzajob | February 19, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Al Jazeera is to Hamas as Fox News is to the Republican Party. One hates Jews and liberals, while the other hate liberals and Jews.

Both are popular, just in different places. I watch both enough to see what the haters are hating today, which amounts to about an hour a week.

Both are available on the Internet, BTW, so you don't need cable TV to watch them.

Posted by: roblimo | February 19, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The Logan story is totally bogus according to ongoing media and Internet information.

As of today, almost all of the Logan "gang rape" narrative has been exposed as a cruel hoax on the public. See Wall Street Journal article.

In fact some have questioned whether any physical contact Logan experienced was any worse than the jostling/rough-housing that 10,000 Egyptians dealt with during the same period.

At this point, is there anything left to the Logan story? Is her real name even Lara Logan? Just askin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 19, 2011 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Well, perhaps Al Jazeera is reticent to go with a story that shows Muslim men in such a bad and brutal light. Could it be that this barbaric behavior is no stranger to Islamic culture -- the abuse of women by men -- and which the editors know all too well about and are not thrilled to expose? So in the nascent hours of Egypt's new found democratic freedom how do a group of Muslim men choose to mark this historic transition? By brutally attacking and sexually assaulting an American female journalist, who put herself at risk to help spread their story. Perhaps there is a reason in the end that this society needed to be ruled by an autocrat and dictator all these years.

Posted by: jacob10 | February 19, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Given the sea change in attitudes towards Al Jazeera English following their Egyptian coverage it's now time for those Americans whose definition of free access to information is selective to find new excuses for keeping them off our airways and cables.

Posted by: rpigossi | February 19, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The FBI estimates that there were almost 90,000 rapes in The United States in 2009.

Just out of curiousity, how many of those did The Washington Post cover?

And why are those women any less important than Logan, who, by the way, was not raped.

Instead of spending your time and energy analyzing what Al-Jazeera is or is not choosing to cover, how about having a look in the mirror?

Posted by: kadnil | February 19, 2011 5:12 PM | Report abuse

In Sydney, the pack leader of a group of Lebanese Muslim gang-rapists was sentenced to 55 years in jail in 2002. I suppose I ought to say "Lebanese-Australian" Muslim gang-rapists, since the accused were Australian citizens. But, identity-wise, the rambunctious young lads considered themselves heavy on the Lebanese, light on the Australian. During their gang rapes, the lucky lady would be told she was about to be "f---ed Leb style" and that she deserved it because she was an "Australian pig."

But, inevitably, it's the heavy sentence that's "controversial." After September 11th, Americans were advised to ask themselves, "Why do they hate us?" Now Australians need to ask themselves, "Why do they rape us?" As Monroe Reimers put it on the letters page of The Sydney Morning Herald:

"As terrible as the crime was, we must not confuse justice with revenge. We need answers. Where has this hatred come from? How have we contributed to it? Perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at the racism by exclusion practiced with such a vengeance by our community and cultural institutions."

Indeed. Many's the time, laboring under the burden of some or other ghastly Ottawa policy, I've thought of pinning some gal down and sodomizing her while 14 of my pals look on and await their turn. But I fear in my case the Monroe Reimers of the world would be rather less eager to search for "root causes." Gang rape as a legitimate expression of the campaign for social justice is a privilege reserved only unto a few.

Mr. Reimers, though, will be happy to know his view is echoed across the hemispheres. Five days before 9/11, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65% of the country's rapes were committed by "non-Western" immigrants -- a category which, in Norway, is almost wholly Muslim. A professor at the University of Oslo explained that one reason for the disproportionate Muslim share of the rape market was that in their native lands "rape is scarcely punished" because it is generally believed that "it is women who are responsible for rape."

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 19, 2011 5:30 PM | Report abuse

So Muslim immigrants to Norway should be made aware that things are a little different in Scandinavia? Not at all! Rather, the professor insisted, "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because their manner of dress would be regarded by Muslim men as inappropriate. "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it." Or to modify Queen Victoria's wedding-night advice to her daughter: Lie back and think of Yemen.

France? Well, I can't bring you any ethnic rape statistics from the Fifth Republic because the authorities go to great lengths not to keep any. But, even though the phenomenon of immigrant gang rape does not exist, there's already a word for it: the "tournante" -- or "take your turn." Last year, 11 Muslim men were arrested for enjoying a grand old tournante with a 14-year old girl in a cellar.

Denmark? "Three quarters of rapes are carried out by non-Danes," says Peter Skaarup, chairman of the People's Party, a member of the governing coalition.

Well, you get the idea. Whether or not Muslim cultures are more prone to rape is a question we shall explore another day. What's interesting is how easily even this most extreme manifestation of multiculturalism is subsumed within the usual pieties. Norwegian women must learn to be, in a very real sense, less "exclusionary." Lebanese male immigrants, fleeing a war-torn wasteland and finding refuge in a land of peace, freedom and opportunity, are inevitably transformed into gang rapists by Australian racism.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 19, 2011 5:32 PM | Report abuse

After September 11th, a friend in London said to me she couldn't stand all the America-needs-to-ask-itself stuff because she used to work at a rape crisis centre and she'd heard this blame-the-victim routine a thousand times before. America was asking for it: like those Norwegian women, it was being "provocative." My friend thought the multiculti apologists were treating America as a metaphorical rape victim. But, even so, it comes as a surprise to realize they do exactly the same to actual rape victims. After the O.J. verdict, it was noted by some feminists that "race trumped gender." What we've seen since September 11th is that multiculturalism trumps everything. Its grip on the imagination of the Western elites is unshakeable. Even President Bush, in the month after September 11th, felt obliged to line up a series of photo-ops so he could declare that "Islam is peace" while surrounded by representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization which objected, on the grounds of "ethnic and religious stereotyping," to the prosecution of two men in Chicago for the "honour killing" of their female cousin.

On this "Islam is peace" business, Bassam Tibi, a Muslim professor at Goettingen University in Germany, gave a helpful speech a few months back: "Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them," he said. "The word 'peace,' for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or 'House of Islam' -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought." Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or "House of Peace."

On the face of it, that sounds ridiculous. The "Muslim world" -- the arc stretching from North Africa through South Asia -- is economically, militarily, scientifically and artistically irrelevant. But, looked at through the prism of Norwegian rape or French crime, the idea of a Dar al-Islam doesn't sound so ridiculous. The "code of silence" that surrounds rape in tightly knit Muslim families is, so to speak, amplified by the broader "code of silence" surrounding multicultural issues in the West. If all cultures are of equal value, how do you point out any defects?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 19, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Once upon a time we knew what to do. A British district officer, coming upon a scene of suttee, was told by the locals that in Hindu culture it was the custom to cremate a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. He replied that in British culture it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing. There are many great things about India -- curry, pyjamas, sitars, software engineers -- but suttee was not one of them. What a pity we're no longer capable of being "judgmental" and "discriminating." We're told the old-school imperialists were racists, that they thought of the wogs as inferior. But, if so, they at least considered them capable of improvement. The multiculturalists are just as racist. The only difference is that they think the wogs can never reform: Good heavens, you can't expect a Muslim in Norway not to go about raping the womenfolk! Much better just to get used to it.

As one is always obliged to explain when tiptoeing around this territory, I'm not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture -- rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. -- is preferable to Arab culture: that's why there are millions of Muslims in Scandinavia, and four Scandinavians in Syria. Follow the traffic. I support immigration, but with assimilation. Without it, like a Hindu widow, we're slowly climbing on the funeral pyre of our lost empires. You see it in European foreign policy already: they're scared of their mysterious, swelling, unstoppable Muslim populations.

Islam For All reported the other day that, at present demographic rates, in 20 years' time the majority of Holland's children (the population under 18) will be Muslim. It will be the first Islamic country in western Europe since the loss of Spain. Europe is the colony now.

"Battered Westerner Syndrome inflicted by myopic Muslim defenders"
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0802/steyn1.asp

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 19, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Journalists, especially foreign journalists, were not PARTICIPANTS in the Egyptian protests, so they should not be targeted for attacks. Of course we know that some were attacked just out of hate for foreigners. But the beating and rape of Lara Logan by a mob of 200 men was more organized and purposefull than the other attacks, and more mean-spirited. For 200 men to participate in this requires an Islamic state of mind. The gang-rape of women is a prescribed Muslim punishment for certain offences. Al Jazeera has to avoid any statements which could be considered as questioning any Islamic principle.

Posted by: allamer1 | February 19, 2011 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Yea, let's blame Al Jazeera. The US media does not want to miss an opportunity to throw a punch. Al Jazeera has often embarrassed US media in coverage and is usually a victim of US bombers and US backed dictators.

How about raising a mirror and discussing your own silence on deaths of countless civilians due to US foreign policies and demonizing of Wikileaks?

Posted by: qalam11 | February 19, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

AJ is simply terrified of being exposed as the Fox of the Middle East.

Posted by: Puller58 | February 19, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Strange world.

Sign of the times that folks can stay worked up over an event AFTER it is reported that, well, ... it didn't happen.

According to reports: No rape, much less gang rape. No 200 Egyptian males lusting after Logan. But many questions about whether a physical assault of any kind occurred against Logan (that was different from the jostling about 15,000 Egyptians experienced in the lengthy melee).

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 19, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse


@jy151310, "the public, celebratory gang rape of Lara Logan was ignored by the American media for days while the Tahir Square Islamist thugs were described as pro-democracy demonstrators. Maybe it's time to identify these anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-Jew, misogynistic creeps for what they are. Maybe it's time to admit the western media including the Post blew the story and followed a template true only their imagination"
You sound delusional and paranoid. If she is Jewish, how would they know that? Woodstock 1999, New York parade anyone? Those were Americans attacking women. Pictures of assaulted naked women circulated the world. Besides in Logan case, there was no rape. It was groping, not that I condone any of that but just to prove that you are carried away with your imagination

Posted by: Cantstandpalin | February 19, 2011 11:26 PM | Report abuse


@jy151310, "the public, celebratory gang rape of Lara Logan was ignored by the American media for days while the Tahir Square Islamist thugs were described as pro-democracy demonstrators. Maybe it's time to identify these anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-Jew, misogynistic creeps for what they are. Maybe it's time to admit the western media including the Post blew the story and followed a template true only their imagination"
You sound delusional and paranoid. If she is Jewish, how would they know that? Woodstock 1999, New York parade anyone? Those were Americans attacking women. Pictures of assaulted naked women circulated the world. Besides in Logan case, there was no rape. It was groping, not that I condone any of that but just to prove that you are carried away with your imagination

Posted by: Cantstandpalin | February 19, 2011 11:27 PM | Report abuse

I often laugh at those comments like those of allamer and others who write with certainty " facts" about Muslims, middle east and Islam only to feel better about themselves. So gang rape is described as a punishment? Can you cite your source please?

Posted by: Cantstandpalin | February 19, 2011 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Logan's aweful, vicious, ordeal is newsworthy only when all the details are ironed out, and only if Logan wants it to be publicized.

Some parts of the story are not clear and are yet to be confirmed. One of them is is the most important of all: Was she actually raped? The Wall Street Journal reports that Lara Logan "was not raped". So what did happen?

Another detail that is yet to be confirmed is the number of men who were in the mob. It may have seemed like 200 men, but who counted?

The final detail that needs clarity is now a popular part of the Logan assault narrative, but it has not even been mentioned by Mr. Capehart--perhaps because there is no proof of it. That detail goes something like this: Logan's attackers were calling out, "Jew, Jew, Jew" as they were assaulting her.

Well, did these men say "Jew" in Arabic or in English? Even if these men knew how to say "Jew" in English, why would they suddenly start using a second language? For Egyptians, the word "Jew" in English is more difficult to pronounce than the Arabic word for "Jew". Egyptians are the only Arabic-speakers who turn every soft 'g' into a hard 'g': "Jew", if they said it, would come out "Goo". The Arabic word for a Jewess is "Yehudia". Believe it or not, they'd find "yahudia" much simpler to say. But did they chant, "yahudia" or "Jew"?

Besides, why would a mob, whipped into a frenzy, suddenly revert to a second language when calling out labels? People articulate their thoughts (however vile) in their first language, particularly when they are emotional, particularly when they are trying to whip each other up.

I'm appalled by what happened to Ms. Logan. I don't doubt for a second that she was attacked by scum. My heart goes out to her. I wish her a quick recovery. I hope her attackers are found and punished.

However, I believe some of the details of her ordeal were added after-the-fact. Once all the details are out, and once Ms. Logan approves, I believe Al Jazeera and other news agencies should expose what happened to this innocent female victim of a disgusting mob. She was trying to report the Feb. 11 celebrations of the Tahrir victory after the largely "peaceful" pro-democracy protests came to an end, and she absolutely deserves to be vindicated--when the details are verified.


Posted by: cgin | February 20, 2011 12:59 AM | Report abuse

al-jazeerah doesnt make reporters a part of the story?

absolute lie

anytime a reporter is even slightly injured in israel...al-jazeerah is there

Posted by: waltkovacs | February 20, 2011 2:43 AM | Report abuse

seems that many here (as usual) are ignorant of life in the middle east.

women are regularly harassed and assaulted in egypt, because basically, there are no laws against it.

somewhere between 60-80 percent of all women experience some form of harassment and/or assault

so i guess that is why al-jazeerah didnt consider it newsworthy....rofl

and these people really want a democracy??? hahahahaa

Posted by: waltkovacs | February 20, 2011 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Are celebrities entitled to more coverage when bad things happen to them than 'civilians'?

Why does everyone seem to think Logan is entitled to coverage?

Posted by: member8 | February 20, 2011 10:16 AM | Report abuse

How much did the WP cover when the U.S. forces "accidentally" bombed Al Jazeera offices in Kabul in 2001 and again in Bagdad in 2003, killing Al Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub? Or did that not merit their headlines and interest? That's a story of our government killing reporters, far more newsworthy than crowd violence. I think we've sensationalized Lara Logan's story in part because she is a white woman. I'm a white woman and if I was Lara Logan, I don't think I would appreciate the prolonged and inappropriate attention to my attack. Next they'll be wanting her to give all the gory details, as if that's somehow legitimate information Americans "NEED" to know. It is just like the video clip of the toddler being thrown to her death by her grandmother at the mall that WP recently posted- completely for the sake of the sick curiosity people have for such horrible events, not out of respect for the true tragedy.

Posted by: rwif | February 20, 2011 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The world has always been ugly and now we are allowed to observe it from many perspectives. Are we better for this ability? Doesn't matter, That's the way it is on ................

Posted by: paukune | February 20, 2011 11:44 AM | Report abuse

With all due respect, you might have titled your piece "Al Jazeera shuns wast's example, leaves tabloid angle to others."

Al Jazeera has reported the known facts of the case on their website. Sadly, what makes up western media's more "in-depth" coverage includes headlines like this found on the LA Weekly's website: "Lara Logan, CBS Reporter and Warzone 'It Girl,' Raped Repeatedly Amid Egypt Celebration", while Al Jazeera reports the assault without conjecture, gossip, innuendo, etc.

Unlike media in the west, Al Jazeera is to be applauded for honoring the request for privacy on behalf of the victim of a brutal sexual assault and refraining from reducing her story to a sensational tabloid piece void of any actual facts other than those already reported on their website.

Posted by: wpposter1 | February 20, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Al Jazeera is a bunch of muslim supporters...that is why they are not reporting it. Why don't you just say so. You know it, I know it. What happened to Lara Logan happens to many, many women who travel through Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East. I've known two of them myself. Sometimes the assaults are less violent and intrusive as the one on Ms. Logan, but they are assaultive in nature nonetheless. Thus is the nature of the Middle East, especially Egypt. Anyone who gives Al Jazeera a second glance is fundamentally anti-American. My hope is that, given this attack on one of their own, the media in this country will begin to take a more critical look at who these people are...those from the Middle East.

Posted by: Larryw21 | February 20, 2011 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Lets see Al-Jazeera or the Washingtonpost print THIS story:

Egyptian Christians Enraged Over Court Acquittal in Christmas Eve Massacre

Sunday, 20 February 2011

Excerpt:

Bishop Cyril, the Coptic Orthodox bishop of Nag Hammadi, said "The court imposed one death sentence because one Muslim was killed, and the Egyptian judiciary wasted the blood of the six murdered Copts, who are of no value to the society. This verdict saddened all Christians worldwide because it means that the State is applying Islamic Sharia on all Christians in Egypt." He explained that according to Sharia the blood of one Muslim, victim Ayman Hisham, is paid for by the blood of one Muslim, Al-Kamouny; since one Muslim died, one Muslim got the death penalty.

http://english.freecopts.net/english//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1226&Itemid=1

Posted by: johnnyboston | February 21, 2011 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Lets see Al-Jazeera or the Washingtonpost print THIS story:

Egyptian Christians Enraged Over Court Acquittal in Christmas Eve Massacre

Sunday, 20 February 2011

Excerpt:

Bishop Cyril, the Coptic Orthodox bishop of Nag Hammadi, said "The court imposed one death sentence because one Muslim was killed, and the Egyptian judiciary wasted the blood of the six murdered Copts, who are of no value to the society. This verdict saddened all Christians worldwide because it means that the State is applying Islamic Sharia on all Christians in Egypt." He explained that according to Sharia the blood of one Muslim, victim Ayman Hisham, is paid for by the blood of one Muslim, Al-Kamouny; since one Muslim died, one Muslim got the death penalty.

http://english.freecopts.net/english//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1226&Itemid=1

Posted by: johnnyboston | February 21, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

I find their explanation appropriate and believable. Many people have died in these riots. Their loss is greater than that of Logan, even if she is a reporter and an American.

Posted by: Nemo24601 | February 21, 2011 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Egyptian journalist Ahmed Mohammed Mahmoud was shot by a sniper on January 28, and later died of his wounds. Mr Capehart's silence on the matter has been deafening.

Posted by: spamsucks | February 21, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Aljazeera, TV network greatly favored by Bin Laden, in English with the Arab accent

Aljazeera and Obama administration, Joe and Hillary are perpetrating a hoax on the American people by claiming that the Arab mobs of hungry and unemployed young men are extremely peaceful and are victims of the security forces. Obama ministers and Aljazeera use every rumor and lie to undermine friendly to the US Arab regimes. These media manipulators use the same old trick: they falsely claim that the "protesters" want freedom and democracy. The same falsehood was used by Clinton and bush when they bombed Iraq and Serbia.

How can people who never knew democracy, never experienced it, hate the West would fight for democracy and freedom.

The public opinion should keep Obama, Hillary and Aljazeera when all these rebellions, riots will produce the same military and islamist regimes.

Our politicans when caught lying claimthat they were misled with everyone else.

People screaming "Allahuu Akbar" and women dressed in black couldn't care less about either democracy or freedom.

Why Washpost, CNN, New York Times and all TV channels do not mention that egyptian horde of rapists screamed "JEW, "ISRAELI" when were stripping Lara Logan from her clothes and viciously beating her.

AOL NEWS
"During the Feb. 11 attack, Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd, according to the Times of London (via the Daily Mail.) She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching.

As she was being abused, the crowd of roughly 200 men chanted "Israeli" and "Jew," apparently believing her to be a spy. Egyptian state media had been reporting that Israeli spies were disguising themselves as television crews."

Posted by: m-epstein | February 22, 2011 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Please stick to your guns, Jonathan, and don't give up. You are absolutely right to call out Al Jazeera on this story. And it's not only about insensitivity to a woman's complaint of assault and what that means.

There's a more complicated underlying story here which has to do with the global left's assault on the mainstream U.S. media, which is more of a problem these days than the right's assault (since they have a channel of expression in Fox TV, they don't feel the need to assault liberal networks as much, although some commentators on Fox do that work for them).

And that story has to do with the mendacious claim by not only the left but Al Jazeera newscasters and commentators that the U.S. media is somehow a lapdog, or a warmonger in bed with U.S. power and not reporting on wars and support of evil dictators impartially. That's what got Nir Rosen in trouble at NYU when he sent the insensitive comment on Twitter that Lara Long was a 'warmonger' and therefore seemed to deserve it.

There is an awful minimizing of her experience going on with this story on the left, and right in this thread and with prominent "media freedom" commentators like Jillian York at the Harvard Berkman Center.

I believe this story is about a struggle for the soul of the mainstream media. And you have got to hold down the center here, Jonathan, and not be bullied. Al Jazeera is an Arab government operation with an agenda. It's seizing the moment to try to penetrate the U.S. market not just for commercial reasons, like an authentic commercial station would, but for decidedly political ones. And it is doing so by making a claim to liberals -- that it covers the news better than their liberal TV.

It's a lie. It doesn't. And this is far from the only story (try watching them over time on stories as varied as the Kremlin or Darfur -- they may technically cover a story, but often by wrapping it in a moral-equivalency package that equates the massacres and murders of foreign powers on a far larger scale than those the U.S. may be responsible for, as if there is no difference in the scale, the remedies available and the nature of the governments themselves).

My further thoughts on the larger dimensions of this issue:

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2011/02/jillian-yorks-objections-to-capehart-arent-really-about-media-freedom.html

Posted by: Catfitz40 | February 22, 2011 2:03 AM | Report abuse

i used to think only the best write articles on the washington post but seeing this i now know i overestimated it. some white girl got slapped and you want it covered equally with Egyptian revolution? stupid

Posted by: naizgi | February 22, 2011 2:17 AM | Report abuse

If what happened to Lara Logan in Egypt IS a story, I can't understand why what happened to Samia Al-Agbhry in Yemen ISN'T. The two stories seem nearly identical, except the latter case was poorly reported and it's not clear if the nature of the assault on Samia was sexual. But who cares about a woman journalist from the Middle East? Certainly not the Washington Post.

To paraphrase Mr Capehart, "The Washington Post's silence on Samia Al-Agbhry has been deafening".

Posted by: Jaume | February 22, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company