“Isn’t anyone bothered by the Lara Logan sex scandal coverage?” asks Washington City Paper’s Angela Valdez.
I’ll get to what bothers me about it in a minute. Although I can’t claim to speak for any other media critics, I’ll bet that the lack of “bother” can be attributed to a couple of things:
1) There really wasn’t very much “Lara Logan sex scandal coverage” by the mainstream American press (unless I somehow missed the cable news coverage-a-thon?) As far as I can see, the trajectory went something like: National Enquirer, assorted foreign tabloids,New York Post, Huffington Post, Washington Post, and CNN’s “Reliable Sources. So that’s, what, two-and-a-half, maybe three mentions by credible media outlets?
2) Anyone who first learned about the “scandal” from the New York Post story probably had a reaction like I did (and this does not let the Post off the hook, the soft prejudice of low expectations and all that): What, did you expect the Post to pass on the chance to publish the headline “Sexty Minutes” alongside a photo of the, yes, very attractive CBS correspondent, Lara Logan? That combination sells papers and begs clicks at a rate that the same headline accompanied by, say, a photo of Logan’s 60 Minutes colleagues Steve Kroft or Lesley Stahl - should a gossip rag ever publish something “sexty” about them —might not. This, after all, is the paper that also liked its coverage of attractive ex-CNN anchor Paula Zahn’s “steamy sex tryst”—tryst also being the Post’s word of choice in its Logan coverage.
Back to what bothers me. It’s too bad that the Huffington Post just passed along what it deemed “the juiciest” bits of the Enquirer and Post stories (which would seem tailor-made for comment and critique from, say, Rachel Sklar) without comment or critique. On Politico’s media blog, for example, Michael Calderone linked the Post story, but included his own critical framing (he mentions Logan’s promotion last week to CBS’ chief foreign affairs correspondent, notes Logan’s Daily Show criticisms of U.S. press coverage of Iraq, and observes that “the news cycle can deal with only so much talk of the harsh realities in Iraq and why the networks are devoting less and less space to coverage. And so the shifting Logan narrative is evident in today’s NY Post cover story.”)
Much the same treatment— “Lara Logan speaks out, gets promotion, lands in tabloids”—by the Los Angeles Times’s blog (ok, so I guess we’re up to three or four-and-a-half credible media outlets having covered, in some capacity, the “Lara Logan sex scandal.”)
At the end of his multi-topic column last week, Kurtz wrote: “Here’s a story that began in the National Enquirer,” then reprinted the first five paragraphs of the New York Post’s version of the Enquirer story, leaving off with the sentence, “A close pal of Logan, who confirmed the allegations to The [New York] Post, said [Logan’s alleged “tryst” partner’s marriage] was already finished six months before they sparked up a relationship”—to which Kurtz added his two (and only) cents: “which would mean it’s not much of a story.”
A suggestion, from media critic to media critic, for how not to treat a story that you deem “not much of a story”: Don’t reprint most of it for your readers. I mean, can we say that it is still “not much of a story” now that the Washington Post has excerpted—and presented to its own readers—most of that story (with almost no additional criticism or commentary)?