KATIE COURIC: Also mentioned in these documents is the number of Afghan civilians who have been killed. How do you think this will damage the war effort?

LARA LOGAN: Well, the issue of civilian casualties is a major one. And the U.S. has taken a lot of criticism because of this. However, what's interesting to note is that according to the documents, 195 Afghan civilians have been killed. But also according to the documents, 2,000 Afghan civilians have been killed by the Taliban, which is more than 10 times the number said to be killed by U.S. and NATO forces. And very little is being made of that. If the coverage would indicate that it's more of an issue for the U.S. to kill Afghan civilians than it is for the Taliban to do so.

It would be absurd to suggest that only 195 Afghan civilians have been killed in the war. That tally from the WikiLeaks data is incomplete, as the Guardian reported:

At least 195 civilians are admitted to have been killed and 174 wounded in total, but this is likely to be an underestimate as many disputed incidents are omitted from the daily snapshots reported by troops on the ground and then collated, sometimes erratically, by military intelligence analysts.

Afghan human rights advocate Erica Gaston points out (Huffington Post, 7/27/10), the WikiLeaks database on civilian casualties is by no means definitive--many well-known incidents are missing.  A summary of estimates of U.S./coalition-caused civilian deaths provided by Wikipedia suggests that the number Logan seemed to think was credible is off by a factor of at least 28.

As for who bears more responsibility for civilian killings, there have been various attempts to make such determinations. In 2008, U.N. monitors counted over 2,000 civilian casualties; when responsibility could be determined, 41 percent of the deaths were attributed to U.S./NATO forces.  On a CBS Evening News broadcast in early 2009, however, military sources were telling viewers that 80 percent of the dead were killed by the Taliban, in a segment devoted to the propaganda tactics of the Taliban enemy (a report that relied entirely on U.S. military sources). That would seem to be the type of journalism Logan would like to see more of.

On the same broadcast in which Logan gave her critique, CBS reporter Chip Reid seemed afraid that the media were likely to obsess over civilian deaths, noting that the Obama White House

may be underestimating the problems here because, yes, people were aware and certainly the president was aware of the problem with civilian casualties, but if we're now going to be bombarded for days on end with a long series of specific examples, that's going to make it more difficult for both the Afghan people and the American people to support this war.

Somehow I doubt there is any danger that corporate media will be "bombarding" anyone "for days on end" with stories of dead Afghan civilians.

The command's own review of events, said the official, who was unwilling to speak on the record, found "no evidence to suggest" that any of the "salacious political quotes" in the article were made in situations in which ground rules permitted Hastings to use the material in his story.

The Post Karen DeYoung and Rajiv Chandrasekaran seem to think some of this military complaining is persuasive. They report that Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings took "minor liberties with the facts," based on the Post getting their hands on the fact-checking emails between Rolling Stone and the military. The magazine asked if McChrystal indeed had voted for Obama--which is something he told Hastings. The military handler responded, "IMPORTANT--PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS--THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNRELATED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE."

Rolling Stone published this fact, in spite of the all-caps warning that it would be "INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE."  But how does reporting a fact someone else doesn't want reported qualify as taking "liberties with the facts"?

One gets the impression that many corporate media figures believe the real problem here is Michael Hastings. The right-wing Media Research Center has singled out CBS reporter Lara Logan for approval for her comments on CNN's Reliable Sources. Logan seems to believe the military's argument that the exchanges were meant to be off the record ("Something doesn't add up here"), in part because she's apparently not had the same experience with McChrystal and his staff: "I know these people. They never let their guard down like that."

Logan shows most clearly where she's coming from with this:

I mean, the question is, really, is what General McChrystal and his aides are doing so egregious, that they deserved to end a career like McChrystal's? Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.

Engel's comments caused Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz (10/12/09) to raise an eyebrow at a reporter stating an opinion: "That sounds awfully opinionated for a working reporter," wrote Kurtz.

But we had to wonder if what really attracted Kurtz's scrutiny was Engel's stating of an opinion, or the opinion itself?

After all, for years FAIR has documented the phenomenon of journalists stating opinions in support of hawkish U.S. policies with virtual impunity--even when their views were catastrophically in error.

And so we wondered if Kurtz would even have commented if a network news reporter had suggested that the U.S. needed to escalate its military efforts in Afghanistan. We needn't have wondered.

Lara Logan, who holds the same position at CBS News as Engel does at NBC--chief foreign affairs correspondent--may be a more vehement cheerleader for escalation than Engel is for withdrawal. In a recent interview with Bob Orr on CBS News' Political Hotsheet, Logan expressed a disturbing devotion to  Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and chief proponent of escalating the war there: "I don't understand why no one will listen to the man you put your faith in and said he is the guy who is going to do this for us...."

Since Logan too "sounds awfully opinionated for a working reporter," we wonder how it is she escaped Kurtz's scrutiny?

For us, it isn't so much that journalists have and express opinions--the public is better served when we know what reporters are thinking--but we are troubled when  disapproval and despair over the lost standards of journalistic objectivity are trotted out only for reporters whose opinions are at odds with official views.

So we are glad to know of Logan's hero worship, even if it is at odds with the worthwhile  journalistic ethic that says reporters should hold the feet of the powerful to the fire--not massage them.
Corrected version: The original version of this post gave Stanley McChrystal's first name incorrectly.