Howard Kurtz Defends Lara Logan's Right to Get Pregnant Without Knowing
Guardian angels

laralogan2.jpg

CBS News correspondent, tabloid fodder, and alleged homewrecker Lara Logan finds a sympathetic ear today in Howard Kurtz's column. Plagued by gossip drummed up by the National Enquirer — like how she was dating CNN's Michael Ware in Baghdad for a bit, then moved on to State Department contractor Joe Burkett, who then flew home to tell his wife about it and divorce her — Logan smartly relies on Kurtz to refocus the coverage. Sure, Logan might be a beautiful seductress who tempts men aboard, but she's also damn good at her job and has risked her life to report from Iraq. And also: BABY NEWS! She's preggers with Burkett's kid and is expected to deliver in January.

Kurtz, of course, was on his show Reliable Sources two weekends ago to "ask" whether the Logan gossip was something the media should even be reporting on, conveniently allowing himself to report on the Logan gossip.

With today's article, it's clear he's made up his mind about that quandary.

But that Kurtz's article plays nice with Logan isn't what makes it worth reading — it's that Kurtz makes it a point to, not once, but twice note the fact that Logan did not know she was pregnant until recently. Inteeeeeresting.

He writes:

Logan became pregnant shortly before leaving Baghdad in April, although she did not know it at the time, and flew to New York to sign a new contract that would compensate her for her expanded responsibilities in Washington.

And then:

The pregnancy was unplanned. Logan says she lost one of her fallopian tubes during an ectopic pregnancy years ago and believed at her age it was highly unlikely that she could get pregnant. The news came at a time when she was looking to change her life.

Why mark up the copy in such a way?

Perhaps to deflect any notion that Logan left Iraq "simply because" she was with child (how cowardly!), or that she signed her new deal with CBS, making Washington D.C. her home base, knowing she was pregnant but not telling her bosses until after the contract was signed, so they wouldn't know she'd have to take maternity leave sometime soon and find an out (how sneaky!).

By assuring readers — and, presumably, CBS News head Sean McManus — that she didn't know she was pregnant, and didn't even think it was a possibility, Kurtz tries to clear Logan of any potential misleading. And that's just the type of sympathetic ear she could use.

Jul 8, 2008 · Link · 2 Responses
Related Posts

  • No related posts found.
  • Comments (2)

    No. 1 Charity says:

    I love when "respectable" news outlets don't report on a titillating story, but report on the REPORTING of the titillating story. That way they get to review all the juicy details then finish up with, "But of course WE are ABOVE IT ALL. It's just too too pedestrian, isn't it? Let's watch that clip again while we play out to commercial."

    Posted: Jul 8, 2008 at 11:32 am
    No. 2 ERSNews.com says:

    Howard Kurtz got beat by the National Enquirer on this story.

    Thats the short version. He's trying to catch up now.

    He bemoans their story one week and then continues to report on it the next — even advancing the story with news of her pregnancy.

    If Howard Kurtz wants to read about Lara Logan's and her journalistic work, he should cover all the news about her, not just the kind that sells newpapers for the Washington Post.

    Try reading ERSNews.com, The Enterprise Report they broke a few serious stories about Lara Logan that he has ignored.

    FYI to Howard .. the National Enquirer sells papers too.. what's the difference? I don't see any in this case.

    Posted: Jul 8, 2008 at 11:46 am
    Leave a Comment

    It's easier to leave comments when you register for an account. It's quick.

    Already have an account? Then log in!

    Scroll Posts