MSNBC's Hayes Frets CBS's Logan's Views Are Too Biased for '60 Minutes'
On the Monday, November 11, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, host Hayes fretted about CBS News correspondent Lara Logan being biased in favor of military action against terrorists. He also theorized that her retraction for using a dishonest source "would be a huge story" if a conservative was being criticized, as he alluded to Dan Rather's story about former President George W. Bush and the National Guard. Hayes began:
So here's where I think the parallel is in terms of the Rather story, the National Guard story we talked about at the top of the program and this. It is that, were the shoe on the other foot, this would be a huge story, right? If this were some liberal, you know, pet liberal issue that was then debunked by a witness who had essentially lied or appears to have lied, or at least told the FBI something else, I remember in the midst of that storm, that was like the biggest story out there.
And the ability of the right-wing echo machine to turn it into the biggest story in the world, and again, like, it was in the midst of a campaign, it was a, you know, you're talking about the President's service record. Obviously, these are intense things, but I still think that what we're seeing in some ways in the fall of this is the asymmetry of the pressure on the right and the left around issues like this.
A bit later, he brought up Logan's stated views on the war on terrorism. Hayes:
I want to play this clip from Lara Logan that's now getting a lot of play. And let me just say, I have no opinions one way or the other about Lara Logan's body of work and don't feel like I'm here to, you know, go after Lara Logan. I just simply don't know. I know this story, and I know some of her other work. This is a speech she gave to the Better Government Association in Chicago last year. Take a listen.
Then came a clip of the CBS correspondent:
There's a big song and dance about whether this was a terrorist attack or a protest, and you just want to scream, "For God's sake, are you kidding me? The last time we were attacked like this was the USS Cole, which was a prelude to the 1998 embassy bombings, which was a prelude to 9/11. And you're sending in FBI to investigate? I hope to God that you're sending in your best clandestine warriors who are going to exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil."
The MSNBC host began his response:
Now, here's my issue with this, and I'd love to get, as a journalism professor and as a former 60 Minutes producer, your response. I have no issue with Lara Logan having strong feelings about what happened in Benghazi. I have strong feelings about everything I cover every night, but everyone knows what my strong feelings are when they come here and look into this television set and I talk to them. They know where I'm coming from.
And say whatever you want about the sentiment "I hope to God you're sending in your best clandestine warriors who will go exact revenge and let the world know the United States will not be attacked on its own soil." Whatever you want to say about that sentiment, that is not an unbiased, sentiment right? That is a strong point of view on what happened and what the response should be, and what bothers me is the projection of neutrality that is necessary for 60 Minutes to exist when this is the background context.