Taibbi takes CBS' Lara Logan to the woodshed

In the end, he throws out just as many broad, baseless generalizations as the target he's aiming for.
(And his potty-mouth is appropriate for a 15-year-old).
Part of the appeal of securing and maintaining access is about actually reporting that which is true, and not merely what's inflammatory.
Writers like this refuse to accept this reality because slash-and-burn seems sexier to them.
Well, sure, you can burn down whatever you like, And some of it might even be worth burning. But the truth is a reasonable goal that the likes of Taibbi never seem to believe is a worthy aspiration.

 

Matt Taibbi must have gone to the Bill Simmons School of Journalism

 

Spluh?

 

"Lara Logan's opinion sank lower than Daniel LaRusso when he got his ass kicked on the beach by Johnny in front of Ali with an I at the beginning of the Karate Kid!"

"Lara Logan needs to think before she speaks. She needs to make four fucking passes before she spouts off her opinion!"

Is that what they teach at the Simmons School?

 

On an additional note, I'd like to see Taibbi take to task his own publication, which has become notoriously soft both in its album reviews (aside from a handful of rock bands it wants to knock down a peg to protect its Boomer-era sound) and its artist/actor profiles, which tend to excuse just about every mistake or poor performance they've ever given in exchange for access.

 

But it is black and white.
The masses are just happier pretending otherwise.

David Brooks?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

The entertainment press trading positive coverage for access? Impossible!

 

HuffPo sides with Logan in an astounding cocktail of tripe, platitudes and lunacy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anita-thompson/shame-on-rolling-stone-an_b_633216.html

I think questioning the methods is valid and always a good discussion. Logan, however, took it to a totally new level by suggesting we, reporters, need to side with the guys in the white hats (and I'm not talking about the UN).

Anita Thompson, the widow of a Thompson I very much suspect would have applauded this method of journalism, lashes out at Taibbi and Rolling Stone, saying it's gone soft since her boo graced its pages. Maybe true, but she does little to support her attack.

 

I want Taibbi's take on Mick Jagger's Goddess in the Doorway.

Does he agree with Jan Wenner that it's a five star classic?

 

Taibbi himself has always said his role model is H.L. Mencken, not Thompson. Also, NOTHING he wrote about Goldman Sachs has been proven wrong and much has been validated. There's a lot of solid reporting between the invective. Also, he's funny.

 

But he doesn't need the potty-mouth. He's better than that, but somehow can resist the 8th-grade gym class sneering.

 

I would take Rolling Stone more seriously if it wasn't Rolling Stone. My brother was in the music industry, had a few contacts at the magazine. It was pretty well known there was a policy to inflate ratings and reviews of crappy-pop-artist-of-the-week in order to keep said artist's agent happy and keep the flow open for interviews in recent years.

I disagree with Brooks and Logan, but Anita Thompson was right when she said this story didn't break any real news. If this wasn't a one-and-done there's no way they run this story.