I think you are not wrong. I do think whatever happened to her easily is described as an ultra-worst-case scenario. It pains me to admit this in fact but it is the truth i believe. And CBS was not embarrassed but more rattled and shocked by the whole incident i think. They were completely over their heads with this one. No one ever at CBS had experienced something like that.
That is why i think they went all secretive. But that was wrong. But how can i blame them? Reading most of the postings here i see many mean assholes doing everything to put Lara back into the dirt where she obviously does NOT belong. On the contrary.
Translation From An Article In A French Web Site (it seems to clarify the point in question):
"It was not organized. It's a stampede. We had just turned in a hospital. We were in the streets surrounding the square,
to interview people. Young people began to rush around. My cameraman, who speaks Arabic, said "Caro, it starts to smell bad,
must go." We have not had time. I was separated from him, thrown on Tahrir Square. It is primarily young people who
surrounded me, and older men joined them. They were about fifty, they tore my clothes, tore my jeans, my underwear. Raped me
with their fingers. For 45 minutes. The crowd applauded around. I thought I was dying. I clung to the arm of a man who was
trying to extract me. Many tried. Finally, they succeeded. I was collected in an ambulance. The crowd banged on the walls
to get me! They wanted to lynch me. I really almost died. "
Almost like with Lara Logan. It could have been from the CBS report concerning Lara.
Caro had much luck. It happened in daylight. But...45 minutes...! That is bad...and what...happened to Lara, then?! That bodes bad for facts concerning Lara. it must have been a magnitude worse for Lara!
PS: Caro THINKS it was not organized. But maybe it was.
The footage of Sinz is remarkable because it apparently comes from a live broadcast on an Egyptian television network. The digital clock in the lower right of the screen shows the local time (almost noon). Sinz said the attack started around 11 am so it seems that footage shows the end of the attack. That pack of guys in vests (with sticks) seem to break it up in that they grab people and hold them and form a barricade at the bottom of the screen. The big guy in the black shirt with white stripes (seen at the start) gets pushed away from something out of sight below the edge of the screen at the very end of the video. The camera couldn't go any lower because it hit the edge of the balcony.
Obsessive examination of the start of the Sinz video shows that things were pretty sexual at that time. Follow their eyes: they are all staring or pointing at or reaching for something midway down the length of her body (such as an exposed pubic area). Even the camera man looks down there when he has line of sight.
Yes, and that is a great mystery. No credible description of an image from that attack has surfaced. Even if the image possessor was frightened about discovery they could post descriptions of "something they saw somewhere" that have the ring of truth. Even if the attack was too awful to comprehend someone who had seen the awfulness would attempt to convey a description of how bad it was and why it can't be shown. That description would leak to the outside world. This is a real puzzler.
1. Article is on the main page of CPJ, which as we all know by now is a f'n watch dog for injustices done to journalists. Great cause, no question. Name of the article: "The silencing crime: Sexual violence and journalists."
2. Several photographs included, all accept one had something to do with the topic of sexual assault on the reporters mentioned in the article. Only one of them depicts ANY physical attack. The picture heading: "Levine, far left, faces harassment from a Jewish settler in Hebron. (AP)." All others include ONLY the pictures of journalists that reported some form of assault.
INCIDENTALLY, THE ASSAULT DEPICTED IN THAT PICTURE IS ONLY ONE THAT HAD NO SEXUAL UNDERTONE. The male settler seems to be angry at the female photojournalist. True, it does look like he is about to hit her with his fist. Not nice to hit women, agreed. However, why would this photo, of all, would appear in an article that talks about sexual violence?
I guess the Jews, once again, control the media, right? Or maybe I am mentioning it here, for the first time, simply because I am too sensitive, and cannot take any criticism against Israel? Or maybe because this is just one of many examples of "accidentally unscurpulous journalism," that does in fact have some underlying agenda? After all, all and that is needed to skew a view point is to juxtapose two unrelated events with a picture? In fact, Ms. Levine's comment is so not unique, that seems to be even included in the article to justify including the picture, not the other way around.
That's my opinion. Thanks for including that israelmotzav article -- you gave me a great excuse to bring this point to everyone's attention.
It doesn't translate well so it must be a slang term. The existence of such a term or concept in common discussion indicates a deeply misogynistic culture. The emphasis on gender separation and hierarchy only serves to reinforce this cultural attribute. I don't think western women can fully comprehend the world view that flows from this mindset. They are going to make errors in judgement because of the cultural differences and what they take for granted about constraints on the behavior of men toward women.
Western woman take for granted that they are regarded as human beings. But this is not common male view in other parts of the world. There are regions where there is a kind of...amorphous view on women. Sometimes i believe they are not regarded as human beings at all in those regions.
Because rape or sexual violence is sometimes defined so broadly that ANY violence on a woman is considered sexual in the western world. Do you know the term structural violence? That is violence that manifests itself through indirect frame conditions. Very complicated definition of a form of violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence
Interesting. Really? So broadening of a definition, ah? All of a sudden. Like there is no more plausible explanation.
Especially in this context.
Especially from this agency.
Especially given the apparent frequency of real sexual assaults (from groping to rape) that is actually taking place.
Do you know why I never brought this up until now? Because if I start listing all such instances -- I will never have the time to go on with my life, and get a job and start a family.
Look: For me an over-zealous definition of sexual violence is the more plausible reason for this picture of Levine than something other like a conspiracy or something. I do not even find that too bad to be honest. As you mentioned yourself: The broadening of the definitions had the effect that we now treat sexual assault much better then in the past. It had its positive effects.
"Journalists employed by major news organisations are usually required to undergo special training before reporting from hostile environments, but sexual harassment and assault are not covered in most courses."
So what's the training, keep reporting as if nothing is happening behind you?