No you misunderstood me. As i misunderstood you. I understood it that you believe that the public at large would react indifferently or hostile to her (media buzz can you remember?)
I replied that the media echo would had been compassionate and understanding if she revealed all.
Concerning that with the victim feeling only negative: I know that already. Believe me...almost everyone here is an expert in PTSD by now - without trying to sound smart ass to you.
Since when are you in this forum? Are you reading here longer or did you just came in? I am curious because i cannot quite pinpoint who you are.
Are you a female? It is okay. We have another woman here posting regularly: Compassion. She is - again without trying to sound smart-assy our PTSD Expert because she is a medical student who did partake in trauma therapy (although not as a full psychiatrist) I wanted to point that out because you are also heavily in PTSD argumentation (I do not mean it as an offense)
PS: This softball explanation would be a good excuse and explanation for when she decides to get out with the full amount of the attack. Thank you. Because the disparity between the original CBS interview and what really happened can be explained to the public like this. And no, that doesnt mean that there is anything hostile attached to what what iam saying here. I mean it in a good way to point that out: It can help the public understand why the Interview was conducted like this and why she held back. That is GOOD.
I agree with your argumentation but want to address the notion that you spoke like Lara Logan was somehow to blame for it. She was not. Reasons: Assault and all that. I want her back on "track" too but she is not to blame for all the horror she must deal with now. It is unfair to demand something from her now.
I feel uncomfortable with that. I do not feel good about the interview i have stated that numerous times. But i do not like a blame-game. I think that is not what she and we all need right now.
Look: I am with you in emotion and morality. I think we are on the same boat. But the argument is faulty. It was broadcasted as a "tell all" interview. That is the problem with it.
As i said before: I find the interview was mess. Partly also because it (not by Logan but by traumatized shocked CBS) was marketed as a "tell all" instead of: "We welcome Lara Logan back into the boat!"
A woman tells of her rape in an interview and collapses weeping?
The reaction would be: Compassionate shock. Sorry but i disagree here with you. Would there be people who would laugh at her? Yes. There are people who laugh at burnt corpses too. Is that something the broad majority of the western communities share? No.
So yes, collapsing weeping after telling of your rape is understandable. I mean for like 80% of the people out there. I am not being naive here just truthful to the people i encounter in the streets every day. Remember the reaction when certain people mocked Lara Logan after her assault. Some of them do not have a job anymore.
I am very inclined against giving Lara ANY BLAME whatsoever concerning the maybe not optimal handling of the interview situation and especially i criticize the notion that she is doing bad journalism. She is doing Fun-Journalism that is also very important to attract viewers.
The reason why this matter is handled how it is can not be answered easily. It is a difficult situation and what happened was...extreme. Cut her some slack. Caroline Sinz and Mona got it easy in comparison. I know that sound horrible but in this case...it is the bloody truth.
She would have looked worse i think. Remember: Her joins were stretched...i am not even sure if she could have stood or talked a day after the assault. I mean not coherently. But alas...it is not a good question anyway. I mean either it is inconclusive or sadistic. But i give you the benefit of the doubt.
Reason is the framing of the picture: You can almost see a classic over the shoulder view. The View-Direction of the two characters are highly acted and are designed to lead the eyes of the viewer along: The eyes of the man are staring directly at the exposed skin of the woman and the woman is holding her head so that the view is not obscured. Highly artificial. Notice the contrast of the two people: Hair color, Color of Clothing.
Then again it is the style of the posing: Almost a cliche how an attack would look like.
You are actually an asshole and you - and the rest of your family and work colleagues - know it by now i guess. What the fuck is "a difficult situation"? IF i rape you bloody you gonna say the same about what happened to YOU? What is wrong with you? The word phrasing reflects that you somehow lost your empathy when dinosaurs still walked the earth.
Dont be absurd. She lived years in Afghanistan and Iraq. I wanna see YOU living in these countries! You and I would not last a week there. She is obviously a specialist on war-torn regions especially in the middle and far eastern area but her experiences in Angola and Kosovo round that up quite nicely to a well rounded background. People seem further intrigued by her frank personality and a truly politically complex stance between liberals and conservatives. Long before the assault she deservingly got her Emmy for her dangerous reports in Afghanistan.
Why? To get mocked by the likes of YOU? If you would be in HER position you would show YOURSELF the Fuck-You.
Because they would send the wrong signal if they would suddenly evacuate every female correspondent. It would be disastrous. And it would also send the wrong signal back to the people who done this. It would send back signals of weakness and fear.