No i think what that article is trying to point out is that there is simply no Emergency training covering sexual assault (prevention and aftermath)
This is exactly what CBS lacked: Training in what to do with a highly traumatized raped colleague. What do you do AFTER it happened? How do you prepare your team mentally and psychologically to deal with something like this? CBS was unprepared in the extreme to deal with this.
How do you train for something like this? In specialized classes with PSTD Experts. Do you hear CBS Spy? Get that to your bosses. Your people have to learn how to deal with this and you have to learn it NOW.
Posted 11/27/2011 6:30 pm
I'm curious as to why nobody ask Lara Logan for a comment on these recent sexual assault since her name comes up in almost every article. Why hasn't anyone interviewed her concerning these assaults since she is the original sexual assault victim.
Not a big deal, unless you are from the community of the already villified settlers :).
I did not suggest conspiracy, I am too smart to attribute this to anti-Semitism (not even in the broadest sense). I mentioned agenda. Agendas can be very different.
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.
I think here the agenda *may* be simply, to avoid, being labeled a proxy of Israel. Seriously. At all cost. Especially since, Jews are still fairly overrepresented in the media. Kind of similar to what you once mentioned about how any mention of genetic predisposition of a given ethnicity to a given illness being a taboo topic in Austria; because one maybe labeled as racist if he tries to do the right thing. (Which, to me is just unbelievable, comming from the medical approach).
The other agenda, may also be rooted in not only benign, but even noble in its heart: it could be a sloppy and pathetic attempt to err on the side of fairness to the other side. The readiness to see fault in onceself, or in what ever most resembles oneself (in this case, Israel, for the Western Media, and especially for the Israeli media). However, it is also the Achiless Heel, if overdone. It is also not very nice when this "fairness" occurs *systematically* at someone's expence. It is NOT true journalism. And it is NOT true fairness.
I realize that it is very difficult to maintain neutrality. So, it is no wonder that educated, liberal, caring people are from the start bent toward someone who appears to be closer to the underdog. Especially, of course, if you a junior journalism student and "grow up" on similar pictures.(We had a very good school of journalism in my undergrad. So I kind of seen it in the making :) ).
these are cute. They change. you can make your own. Justrite "random" between : :, and it will get you there. This last one is very cute. But it may change itself into something ugly like that blond teenager with a hangover.