71 search results for "Lara Logan"

CBS goes Fox

by digby

This is how 60 Minutes lamely dealt with its shocking hoax:

Here’s a reminder of how Lara Logan saw the Benghazi story one month after the event in 2012,  long before she was so “misled” by her source.

I wrote out my thoughts on Logan’s bias in this piece yesterday and posted a full length version of her speech about journalism and the scary terrorists who are all coming to kill us in our beds. As I wrote there, I think it’s fine that she’s an unreconstructed war hawk who believes that the US should exact revenge for Benghazi, but she should be upfront about her worldview and 60 Minutes should be extra careful in vetting any “scoops” she comes up with that sound too good to be true.

Clearly, they feel they can get away with this without anyone having to pay a price. This, despite the fact that unlike the old Bush National Guard story that got Dan Rather fired, Benghazi is a contemporary story and it’s having an effect on policy and politics in real time. But perhaps the difference really is that when Rather fell for a hoax, the entire Republican establishment went into high gear to ensure that his career was destroyed. The significance of the old and gossipy Guard story was negligible compared to this, but Logan is not widely considered to be a partisan (she isn’t a Republican — she’s a hardcore military hawk, which isn’t necessarily the same thing) and so the Democratic Party does not seem inclined to declare itself in this matter. Fox and the Republicans are successfully portraying this as some sort of Media Matters plot and dismissing it as a blip in the ongoing Benghazi! scandal which they see as one of their aces in the hole against Clinton. So, 60 Minutes obviously feels they can ride this out.

And sadly, they probably can. Logan is not only their up and coming super-star reporter, she’s a sympathetic figure because of the horrifying sexual assault she suffered in Egypt. I do not see any career ramifications for her and probably not for her bosses, who she herself admits knew of her propensity to try to prove her pre-conceived narrative and yet did nothing to rein her in on this story.

For the rest of us it signals that 60 Minutes has become a conservative news program (and that’s not based on this story alone.)It should be branded that way and seen in that light by the public at large. And that’s fine. Considering that the president of CBS News spent his entire career at Fox News and Bloomberg prior to his current job, I’d say that becoming an openly conservative network was a conscious decision by CBS. (A process that started with Rather’s firing.)

And sadly, speaking of Rather, even as Lara Logan is presumably allowed to continue her advocacy journalism without disclosing her advocacy, there’s this:

Dan Rather says he’d hoped CBS News would ask him to be part of its coverage of the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy‘s assassination. As Deadline reported two weeks ago, CBS News announced plans for coverages of the historic event without mentioning Rather, who was the CBS News guy assigned to the region, and who reported on the assassination in Dallas. Rather who is one of few journalists who covered the event who’s still around and working in the biz, will be included in CBS News coverage, but only in archival material in the news division’s 48 Hours special.

Because CBS doesn’t want to be associated with his shoddy journalism.

Here are some good pieces on this mess by Greg Mitchell, Jay Rosen and Michael Calderone.

Update: More reporting from Craig Silverman at Poynter who compares the Rather and Logan constroversies.  Dylan Byers has more on what’s happening at CBS News.

.

“Quote-unquote” journalism

by digby

After the segment on CBS This Morning in which we saw  Lara Logan forced to admit to her egregious Benghazi hoax, here’s Norah O’Donnell interviewing Ben Smith from Buzzfeed:

“What about the flip side of twitter, where anyone can be a ‘quote unquote’ journalist and so many mistakes are made as a result?”

There wasn’t even a moment’s reflection about the magnitude of Logan’s admission or a second’s worth of humility about the limits of  journalistic (quote-unquote) integrity.

Be sure to watch the whole segment to get a sense of the disdain in which the vaunted CBS News division holds the upstart internet pretenders on the very day (on the very program!) their flagship news show admits to an epic botch of an extremely important story. I laughed out loud.

Lara Logan gives us a perfect illustration of how the establishment press thinks “real journalism” should be practiced. This is from Kevin Drum:

So here’s what we know. Davies never told Logan about the incident report. He never told the co-author of his memoir about the incident report. When the content of the report was revealed, he invented an entirely implausible story about lying to his supervisor in the report because he respected him so highly and didn’t want him to know that he’d disobeyed orders not to approach the compound. And yet, in a story that should have set off all sorts of alarms in the first place, this still didn’t set off any alarms for Logan. She continued to defend Davies and her reporting until news emerged yesterday that the incident report matched what Davies had told the FBI in a debriefing shortly after the attack.

You see, when someone comes to you with a blockbuster story about government malfeasance in which he depicts himself as a super-hero fighting off terrorists with his bare hands,
the last thing a quote-unquote journalist would do is check with this person’s employer to see if he told them the same story at the time. You certainly wouldn’t bother to check with the officials investigating the story to see if they have uncovered the same details. After all, she only had months to report it. You can’t expect her to do something that unorthodox under those time constraints. Just imagine what the tweeters would have done with this.

Update: Kevin proposes in his piece that Logan has some sort of agenda. Indeed she does:

Lara Logan, a correspondent for CBS’ “60 Minutes,” delivered a provocative speech to about 1,100 influentials from government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas. Such downtown gatherings are a regular on Chicago’s networking circuit. (I am a member of the BGA’s Civic Leadership Committee, and the Chicago Sun-Times was a sponsor).

Her ominous and frightening message was gleaned from years of covering our wars in the Middle East. She arrived in Chicago on the heels of her Sept. 30 report, “The Longest War.” It examined the Afghanistan conflict and exposed the perils that still confront America, 11 years after 9/11.

Eleven years later, “they” still hate us, now more than ever, Logan told the crowd. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she added. They’re coming back.

“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.

The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.

“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”

Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents, and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports.

She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”

Our enemies are writing the story, she suggests, and there’s no happy ending for us.

Logan even called for retribution for the recent terrorist killings of Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other officials. The event is a harbinger of our vulnerability, she said. Logan hopes that America will “exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.”

.

Fair and Balanced and Benghazi

by digby

I posted last night about what appears to be a Benghazi hoax broadcast by 60 Minutes and reported by Lara Logan. This article in Foreign Policy adds some new details:

What’s beyond dispute is that Jones worked for the Britain-based contractor Blue Mountain, which was hired by the State Department to oversee perimeter security at the compound. On Thursday, the Washington Post obtained Jones’ written account of the Sept. 11 attack that he gave to his bosses a few days after the incident. In contrast with the 60 Minutes account, which saw him knocking out terrorists with the butt end of his rifle and scaling a 12-foot wall the night of the attack, the Blue Mountain report has Jones at his beach-side villa for the majority of the night. Despite an attempt to make it to the compound, Jones wrote that “we could not get anywhere near … as roadblocks had been set up.”

According to the newspaper, “[Jones] wrote that he visited the still-smoking compound the next day to view and photograph the destruction.”

There are also other red flags the Post story doesn’t include. For weeks, it seems, Jones tried to profit off his brush with disaster. In a Fox News report on Monday, reporter Adam Housley said his source relationship with Jones ended after he insisted upon receiving money. “He spoke to me on the phone a number of times and then we stopped speaking to him when he asked for money,” Housley said. On Fox News, that fact is introduced as an incidental footnote to the network’s follow up on the 60 Minutes story. It has become more relevant in light of The Post’s report. (Paying sources for information is typically frowned upon in American journalism.)

Jones has other ways of cashing in as well. This week, his book titled The Embassy House was published by Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, which is a part of CBS Corporation, which owns 60 Minutes — a fact not disclosed in the 60 Minutes story. His book is also going to make it on the silver screen. In October, Thunder Road acquired The Embassy House for a feature on the Benghazi attack produced by Basil Iwanyk and executive produced by Taylor Sheridan.

At press time, a representative at Threshold Editions in charge of publicity for The Embassy House did not respond to a request for comment. 60 Minutes has said “We stand firmly by the story we broadcast last Sunday.”

When asked if Senator Graham’s hold on all White House nominees was still in effect in light of the criticisms of Jones’s account, Graham’s spokesman said “no change.”

I would guess that 60 Minutes didn’t directly pay this fellow for his story. They didn’t have to. Their parent company is paying him for his book. That works out nicely, doesn’t it?

I would say you are definitely in trouble when it’s revealed that Fox News refused to find a way to pay this fellow for his big Benghazi scoop. They’ve pretty much changed their slogan to “Fair and Balanced and Benghazi.” If anyone would have jumped at the chance it would be them. And they didn’t.

.

by digby

Oh my:

In what Washington Post’s Karen DeYoung describes as an “explosive report” on CBS’ 60 Minutes on Sunday, the venerable TV news magazine offered “a harrowing account of the extremist attack that killed four Americans” at the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya last year. 

Naturally, Fox “News” and others on the Right — such as Sen. Lindsey Graham who promised on Wednesday to block all of President Obama’s nominees following the report — have been trumpeting it all week. 

In the report, CBS’ Lara Logan interviews a man psuedonomously identified as “Morgan Jones”, a British supervisor of security guards protecting the mission. He tells Logan that, as the attack that night went on and four U.S. officials were ultimately killed, he scaled the compound’s 12-foot wall, took out an al-Qaeda terrorist “with the butt end of a rifle” and eventually was at the hospital to witness the lifeless corpse of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. 

But, as reported by DeYoung at WaPo today, that story by “Jones”, as offered on 60 Minutes, appears to be completely untrue. That “harrowing account” by “Jones,” whose real name is reportedly Dylan Davies, is completely at odds, according to the Post, with the written account that he “provided to his employer three days after the attack” when he said he was nowhere near the diplomatic compound on the night of the deadly tragedy…
DeYoung reports that “State Department and GOP congressional aides confirmed that Davies’s Sept. 14, 2012, report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was included among tens of thousands of documents turned over to lawmakers by the State Department this year.”

Keep in mind that Benghazi!™ is a patented right wing smear developed to torture Hillary Clinton for the rest of her life. (They don’t need it for Barack Obama because: Kenyan usurper.)

Huckleberry Graham’s involvement should be no surprise.  He was a House Impeachment manager back in the day.  His main contribution  to the case was to point out that Monica had an orgasm. Seriously.

.

Asking for it

by digby

Liz Trotta may be the biggest piece of work on Fox News and she outdid herself today. Get a load of this:

TROTTA: …just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact, the whole airing of this issue has never been done by Congress, it’s strictly been a question of pressure from the feminist.

And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims’ advocates, sexual response coordinators. Let me just read something to you from McClatchy Newspapers about how much this position on extreme feminism is costing us. “The budget for the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office leapt from $5 million in fiscal 2005 to more than $23 million in fiscal 2010. Total Defense Department spending on sexual assault prevention and related efforts now exceeds $113 million annually.” That’s from McClatchy Newspapers.

So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.

SHAWN: Well, many would say that they need to be protected, and there are these sexual programs, abuse programs, are necessary —

TROTTA: That’s funny, I thought the mission of the Army, and the Navy, and four services was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war.

And then there’s this:

Trotta also appeared on Fox News yesterday to discuss a Newsweek story about the persecution of Christians globally. During the segment, the topic of CBS News reporter Lara Logan’s sexual assault was raised, and Trotta said:

TROTTA: I think the Lara Logan thing is a completely separate thing. Any woman – and I’ve been in those crowds – any woman who’s going to be in one of those highly passionate crowds in the Middle East where Islamics are running around yelling “Allahu Akbar” is taking her life in her hands. And so, I mean, you know the least that can happen to you is that you’ll get felt up, so you have to know that going in. But I think that’s separate from what’s happening to Christians. They are being sacrificed for their religion.

She’s one tough gal. And one despicable human being.

A Brave Journalist

by digby

I always admire the intrepid journalists like Richard Engel or Lara Logan, throwing themselves into the line of fire to bring home the story. They are brave, brave people and as much as I criticize the press, I consider these reporters to be heroes.

But there is no reporter alive as brave as Walter Shapiro:

It was a self-inflicted, eye-glazing marathon—50 hours in late August spent watching a full sampling of the Fox News lineup. Looking back, it seems like a nine-day hallucination of strident voices, blonde hair, and more pitchmen hawking gold coins than at any time since the heyday of King Midas.

Why did I volunteer for this ordeal when a rational person would have been at the beach? Not to belabor the predictable liberal lament that Fox News fails to uphold the high TV journalistic traditions of Edward R. Murrow and Eliot Spitzer. Rather, I wanted to know how the leading cable news network was deploying its unprecedented powers in its coverage of the 2012 GOP presidential race.

Few Republican voters outside Iowa and New Hampshire will glimpse a presidential contender on anything other than a TV screen. And that TV screen is apt to be tuned to Fox. According to a 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of Republicans habitually watch Fox News. Bill O’Reilly alone regularly attracts 21 percent of Republicans. It is a safe guess (although Pew did not ask the question directly) that more than half the activists who will be voting in the GOP primaries are Fox faithful. There is no equivalent thumb-on-the-scales force on the Democratic side—not even if you combine MSNBC, NPR, and The New York Times. And, as it turned out, the lesson of my TV marathon was unambiguous: The Fox News primary already has a winner.

Shapiro got out alive, but I’m sure he’ll never be the same. Nobody can survive something like that without sever psychological damage.

But the story he brought back is worth it. He’s absolutely correct that this is how most Republicans will get their information about these primaries and Roger Ailes’ preference is, therefore, extremely important. Read the whole thing to find out who that is …

.

Drama Queens

by digby

Ladies, here’s some advice from a conservative, freedom loving man who cares about you:

Don’t trust your male friends. Don’t go to a man’s home at night unless you’re prepared to have sex with him. Don’t disrobe in front of a male masseur. If you take a job as a masseuse, don’t be shocked if your male customers think you’re a prostitute. And if you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, don’t pose for pictures that emphasize your cleavage.

Yes, yes, I know: Each of us wears many personas. A woman journalist like Lara Logan should be able to celebrate herself as both a journalist and a woman, even a sexy woman. But the operative word in that sentence— should— is the sticky point.

Many of the tragedies mentioned about spring from what I see as a naïve faith in the power of the modern sexual revolution. Women today are technically free to do all sorts of things that were forbidden to their grandmothers, which is all well and good. But in practice, rape and the notion of sexual conquest persist for the same reason that warfare persists: because the human animal— especially the male animal— craves drama as much as food, shelter and clothing. Conquering an unwilling sex partner is about as much drama as a man can find without shooting a gun— and, of course, guns haven’t disappeared either.

Earth to liberated women: When you display legs, thighs or cleavage, some liberated men will see it as a sign that you feel good about yourself and your sexuality. But most men will see it as a sign that you want to get laid.

There’s one culture that takes this sort of thing very seriously indeed and ensures that women don’t go around provoking men to rape them:

Britneyizing Logan

by digby

Here we go again with another respected journalist being targeted for daring not to abide by the established village mores. As I noted earlier today, Lara Logan appeared on Jon Stewart and made some pretty harsh assessments of the news media’s commitment to serious war coverage. From Will Bunch:

A number of bloggers picked up Logan’s comments on “The Daily Show” and to the Times, and the video was a huge hit on the Internet. She was on with Stewart last week and was featured in the Times article on Monday. Later this week, a story appeared about Logan — not exactly your normal A-list celebrity — in the pages of the National Enquirer, which of couse had nothing to do with Logan’s actual news coverage of Iraq or her pointed criticism of the U.S. media. The story was strictly about allegations involving Logan’s personal life. It was quickly picked up by some other outlets, some surprising, like the Huffington Post, and some not surprising at all. In fact, the story was splashed across the front page of this morning’s New York Post, the tabloid that is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is also owner of (among many things) the Fox News Channel, the leading producer of braindead pro-war journalism that is the exact opposite of Logan’s groundbreaking work. You’d also be shocked, I’m sure, to learn that the Post article is linked on the highly popular, conservative leaning Drudge Report. I’m not going to link to the articles — use “the Google” if you must — but to give you a flavor of this important news story, the Post cover shows a smiling Logan over the large headline, “Sexty Minutes.” If you do read the stories, you’d be hard-pressed to see why these allegations are suddenly rushing out now. One traces back to a court matter filed back in January. The second part of the article is old news, too — dating back at least to last year. As the Post notes in the one part of the article that I will mention, it’s a saga that “first broke on the freerepublic.com in December.” The freerepublic.com? As in, the ultraconservative Web site where reporters and photojournalists who report truthfully from Iraq are frequently attacked or smeared. Indeed, it seems that attacks on Logan in the right-wing blogopshere are nothing new — last year, conservative Michelle Malkin falsely charged that “Haifa Street” story contained footage provided by al-Qaeda. But this is different — the smearing of Lara Logan is bleeding into the mainstream, more widely read media, and it’s getting personal. And of course it’s easy to play devil’s advocate, because gossip about certain types of TV personalties — certainly the local news anchors in a market like mine, Philadelphia — is standard newspaper fare, especially when the personalities are good-looking, as Logan surely is. But she’s not an anchorwoman, just a network war correspondent whose not even based around here, and even if these stories about her personal foibles are true, and who knows about that, it’s simply not Page 1 news. But the timing here really stinks. Is this just another low-grade tabloid scandal — or a message to journalists who dare to criticize big corporate media’s growing blackout on news from Iraq?

Well there is a precedent for sidelining anyone who dares criticize the media’s war coverage, isn’t there? And in this case, the journalist is highly respected with an impeccable record as a war correspondent.

After being forced to watch that unctuous, phony grief fest a week ago for a fellow everyone extolled as the ultimate newsman because he asked asked some silly questions on Sunday mornings, that someone might be trying to shut this real reporter up for speaking the truth is truly beyond the pale. They will do anything to maintain control of the narrative.

I hope this is coincidence. And, frankly, the smear is fairly innocuous celebrity gossip. But at the very least, it trivializes her, which begins to devalue her as a journalist. I guess they need to bring her down to their shallow level.

.

OMG tigr!

by digby

Media Bloodhound caught a perfect example of the Entertainment Industrial Complex doing its best to ensure that Americans stay as uninformed as possible:

On June 17, Lara Logan, CBS News’ Chief Foreign Correspondent, had this exchange with Jon Stewart:

STEWART: Do you watch the news that we’re watching? LOGAN: No. STEWART: …in the United States? Do you see what we’re hearing about the war? So, we might actually know everything? LOGAN: If I were to watch the news that you hear in the United States—I’d just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts.

The following night, CBS Evening News spent the first four-and-a-half minutes of its broadcast on star golfer Tiger Woods’ injury. (View full clip here.) This is how anchor Russ Mitchell (filling in for Katie Couric) began this opening story, which accounted for, excluding commercials, nearly one quarter of the night’s newscast:

RUSS MITCHELL: Just two days after one of his greatest victories, the season is over for perhaps the biggest name in sports. Tiger Woods, the world’s number one golfer, said today he needs reconstructive knee surgery to a pair of torn ligaments. It is a major blow for Woods and for the sport itself.

I contacted CBS and asked them how they not only justified making this their lead story but saw fit to devote nearly a quarter of their broadcast to it. I received the following statement from Rick Kaplan, Executive Producer of CBS Evening News, who, I was also informed, had a direct hand in making this decision:

“The Tiger Woods injury story was of major importance and we felt we needed to devote time to it as the lead. Tiger is arguably one of the world’s premiere athletes and his career is in some jeopardy with Tiger halting playing the sport for the year. It was certainly the most talked about story of the day, and the biggest story in most national newspapers. Our story contained implications for sports, millions of fans, and many aspects of business; which have by and large been revolutionized by the Tiger Woods phenomenon.”

Click over to Media Bloodhound to see a small sampling of the headlines that existed on that day from the US and around the world. You’ll see what excellent editorial judgment that was.

It’s not that sports news isn’t important. But four minutes out of about 22? About an athlete’s knee injuryt? Really? It’s not like he died or even that he found out that he had to retire because of his injury. He’s out for the rest of the 2008 tour and will make a full recovery. The humanity.

I know this was undoubtedly the story of the day during lunch at the Palm among all the men who watched that memorable US Open — guys like Kaplan who run networks and who have been “revolutionized” by the Tiger Woods Phenomenon, (which I suspect translates into buying all of his products and following his career like a bunch of teen age groupies.) But I’m not really sure that the obsessions of a bunch of rich guys for another incredibly rich guy qualifies as news. It’s celebrity gossip for boys.

.

Just How Bad Is Our National Discourse?

by tristero

This is the week Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. This is also the week where plausible allegations surfaced that the Bush administration had sought illegal wiretapping within at least 5 weeks of Bush’s installation in the White House. So what is the lead article in the print edition of the NY Times Week in Review (the Sunday editorial/op-ed section)? Are you stting down? Believe me you need to.

Reporters and their cats:

IT was a bitterly cold night in the Baghdad winter of 2005, somewhere in the predawn hours before the staccato of suicide bombs and mortars and gunfire that are the daily orchestration of the war. Alone in my office in The Times’s compound beside the Tigris River, I was awaiting the telephoned “goodnight” from The Times foreign desk, eight time zones west, signaling that my work for the next day’s paper was done.

Iraq’s strays inherit land said to have given rise to all domestic cats.
That is when I heard it: the cry of an abandoned kitten, somewhere out in the darkness, calling for its mother somewhere inside the compound. By an animal lover’s anthropomorphic logic, those desperate calls, three nights running, had come to seem more than the appeal of a tiny creature doomed to a cold and lonely death. Deep in the winter night, they seemed like a dismal tocsin for all who suffer in a time of war.

With others working for The Times in Baghdad, I took solace in the battalion of cats that had found their way past the 12-foot-high concrete blast walls that guard our compound. With their survival instincts, the cats of our neighborhood learned in the first winter of the war that food and shelter and human kindness lay within the walls. Outside, among the garbage heaps and sinuous alleyways, human beings were struggling for their own survival, and a cat’s life was likely to be meager, embattled and short.

And then the writing gets maudlin (sarcasm).

As it happens, Frank Rich’s column today is a rant about America’s “whatever” attitude towards Bush’s torture policies. Normally, I would agree with him, this country is indeed far too complacent. But when Rich’s employer, and the paper of record, leads off its Sunday editorial section with a long article about reporters and their cats, blaming the public for not taking the news seriously strikes me as grotesquely misplaced.

Cats, for crissakes.

Update by Digby: I don’t normally intrude on tristero’s posts, but this just seems so necessary. From Ken Silverstein at Harper’s, discussing the Howie Kurtz interview on The Daily Show last week:

Kurtz related that Lara Logan’s bosses at CBS had once asked her “to do the lighter side of Baghdad–let’s do a story about female soldiers who are keeping cyberpets online.” I guess if Kurtz had received that request, he would have jumped from his desk and begun preparing a long segment on G.I. Jane and “Barky” the Cyberdog. Logan, because she has self-respect, refused. Indeed, as Kurtz related, she emailed back, “I would rather stick needles in my eyes than spend one second of my time on that story.” Kurtz seemed appalled by this, but Stewart clearly sided with Logan. His reply to Kurtz: “Good for her.”

I also have to confess that I quite liked the cat article. What can I say? — D

.