lara logan

2 posts

Lara Logan and the Media Ouroboros

I like to imagine Nir Rosen as he typed those fateful tweets last week, smugly pleased at his cynical prediction of the media response to Lara Logan’s assault, yet completely oblivious to the response his own comments would draw – a response that was all too predictable to the chorus of Twitter followers who immediately snapped screenshots. Sophocles himself could not have written a better scene. Not only was Rosen brought down by his own hubris, but his remarks in fact served to catalyze the very attention he was railing against. For as we’ve learned repeatedly in recent years, if there’s one thing that gets more media focus than an awful event, it’s the controversial and insensitive statements that various media figures will inevitably make about it.

Consider the Arizona shooting. Certainly it made sense, in the wake of a bitter and divisive campaign season, to question whether violent rhetoric by politicians and commentators could inspire violent acts. Then, before we knew it, we were somehow talking about whether Sarah Palin had said something anti-Semitic and whether the ADL’s response to the inappropriate choice of words in her response to the liberal media’s response to the shooting should have been more strongly worded. It’s like if David Foster Wallace had been a writer for National Enquirer.

Image by Janet Olevsky

This cycle becomes particularly predictable in cases dealing with race, religion, gender, or sexual assault. Thus, when the Lara Logan story broke, all the stock characters came out of the woodwork. There were the political hacks who can never pass up an opportunity to complain about the attention received by white victims of assault, as if doing so somehow helps minority victims. There were, as always, the delightful internet commenters who were quick to blame Islam (a strange thing to say, considering nearly 20% of the Egyptian population is Christian) or to ‘compliment’ the victim’s appearance in less than ideal ways.

And there were the almost-as-delightful internet crusaders who jumped on comments like “CBS should have provided better security” with cries of “Victim-blamer!” In the near future, someone will create a script that will generate these entire conversations for us, leaving us all with more time to tend to our virtual crops. Until then, despite what some may say, we will continue to air our invaluable opinions. That empty comment box isn’t going to fill itself.

This brings us back to Mr. Rosen. What makes his meltdown somewhat novel is that he was neither remarking directly on what happened nor on what others had said about it but merely on what he thought they would say.  The process is now so familiar that reporting on it before it happens is only the next logical step. But this phenomenon is not limited to talking heads. Take the mini-uproar over the choice of photo in a recent Gawker article, where commenters complained that the picture of Logan in a somewhat flattering dress inappropriately sexualized her and would invite comments to the effect that she deserved it. Whether or not such concern was warranted, expressing it did in fact steer the conversation towards a discussion of her sexuality. And just as some media outlets report every single thing Sarah Palin says and some people follow Jersey Shore under the reasoning that ‘this is what everyone else is going to be talking about’, justifying one’s own reaction or opinion by attributing it to hypothetical future others creates the very situation it claims to anticipate.

In The Precession of Simulacra, Jean Baudrillard described the four successive stages of the image as representation: reflecting a basic reality, perverting a basic reality, masking the absence of a basic reality, and finally bearing no relation to any reality, existing as its own simulacrum and representing nothing but itself. Our media culture has long passed the fourth stage (though it still engages in the second from time to time). But somewhere behind the map, one can still occasionally make out the territory – a real territory where people die, dictators fall, and female journalists face dangers that most of us are only now beginning to imagine.

Today In Poor Judgment (Newsrag Blog Edition)

Somehow, the most prominent aspect of the attack on Lara Logan that has caused forthright people to desire intense social isolation has been the opportunity it has allowed people to, apropos of nothing, display a total lack of forethought and respect where sexual violence is concerned. The news cycle being what it is, you would think educated, otherwise sensible people were falling over themselves to go out of bounds with judgments over this they have no real connection to.  They have been publicly shamed, some of their careers have been disrupted, and yet it seems like the open season for blithe pontification on the Logan case seems to still be in effect.

The latest to tread dangerous waters appears to be Ward Harkavy over at the Village Voice’s Runnin’ Scared blog. The title of his first thought piece? “Lara Logan: Was She Actually Raped? It Makes A Difference”, which anyone for whom sexual violence is salient will be taken aback by. Wading into the text mixes the initial shock with a dose of healthy confusion, as Harkavy is pushing to clarify whether the attack on Logan was “actual rape” because he feels that there isn’t enough outrage over it. Harkavy’s follow-up post (“Lara Logan: The Rape Question, and a Scandalous NYPD Connection”) elaborates a bit further on this point – he argues that “sexual assault” is a sort of soft word, used to defang and discredit cases of rape (he cites a pretty heinous NYPD case to illustrate this).

I have to admit that when I started to write this post, when I was initially shown the “It Makes A Difference” editorial, I was aghast enough to make it about how the Village Voice royally fucked up and embarrassed themselves, but even as I think the particulars here are still really messed, the concerns Harkavy’s justifications raise are worth considering to some degree.  “Sexual assault” as a term is meant to eliminate the sort of hierarchal stratification of violence that puts penetrative rape at the very top, to the exclusion of all else, but it stands to reason that the intentionally generic nature of the term lends it to use as a sort of desensitizer.

But there are more pressing problems with the argument, beyond that it’s a, uh, novel way to approach the issue, and could just as easily be a thin veil to cover the harrassment of survivors (I take Harkavy’s apparent concern for justice in his posts at face value). The first problem is that this isn’t an abstract, hypothetical thought experiment, it’s a real horrific thing that happened to a real person, and seizing on her case to make a wider point does her a grave disservice, to put it mildly. Harkavy’s argument that the public interest trumps Logan’s right to privacy is not just a tad unsettling. The second problem is that the question being asked accepts in its premises the idea that non-penetrative assaults are less worthy of concern than (to use Whoopi’s unfortunate phrase) “rape rape”. It’s a gamble that Harkavy is cavalierly taking on Logan’s behalf – if penetrative rape did in fact occur, he can then forcefully argue for greater media salience and activism, but if it didn’t he’s painted himself into a corner from which he can only admit that it isn’t as big of a deal as it’s made out to be. There are several possible scenarios that could prove to be just as traumatic as penetrative assault (and if it doesn’t really matter, why would you ask in the first place?)

But even as Harkavy’s posts are, at best, woefully misguided and essentially counterproductive to efforts to recast dialogs around violence, I don’t think it’s appropriate that this guy should be pilloried, as he probably will be (in some corners at least) in the near future. From the looks of his post history, the guy is the Village Voice’s crime beat reporter, and I imagine (though I could very well be wrong) that his perspective is akin to many of those in law enforcement: Simpatico in many respects with the desires of citizens against sexual violence, but at least partially tone-deaf when it comes to matters of structural and social injustice. The dude is not John Boehner, and as disrespectful and callous as his posts come across, I would disagree with the calls to fire his ass that are surely on their way. Who knows if a clarification or begrudging apology is appropriate, but the very least to be done is an immediate moratorium on the pursuit of this “clarification”.

Ultimately, the brunt of the blame for this embarrassment likely lays with the Voice’s editorial staff. With his history of covering rape cases for the paper and hammering out alerts regarding wanted suspects and missing children, it’s possible that the editors felt Harkavy was a good fit for an editorial series on the Logan attack. It’s disappointing that no one was willing or able to point out the severe problems that naturally followed from the series’ line of questioning. I expected more from a decent rag like the Voice.*

As for the possibility that the Village Voice used the headlines it did to cynically court outrage and the pageviews it brings? The idea is so preposterous as to be beyond consideration.

* I was halfway through a complaint to Foster Kamer before I realized he doesn’t work there anymore.