Itemoids

ABC

Trump Has One Approach to the Law

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 06 › trump-hunter-biden-indictment-plea-deal › 674543

In the space of two weeks, the country witnessed two major announcements from the Department of Justice: the first federal indictment of a former president (Donald Trump) for unlawful retention of classified documents and related acts of obstruction, concealment, and false statements, and a guilty plea by the son of the sitting president (Hunter Biden) to federal tax and gun charges.

The identities of the defendants mark these as highly significant political events. And the responses to both sets of charges tell us a great deal about the competing visions of governance on display in the early days of the 2024 election—one vision that threatens to destroy core principles of American law, and one that seeks to safeguard them.

Take, first, Trump’s reaction to his federal indictment. In his political rhetoric and in the emerging legal arguments in his defense, Trump claims that he did nothing wrong. The inquiry, by virtue of the fact that it was conducted by the Department of Justice in a Democratic presidential administration, is an inappropriatepolitical prosecution,” full stop. Trump leveled similar accusations of political motivation in response to the news of Hunter Biden’s plea deal, although here Trump’s accusation was one of favoritism, not persecution.  

[David A. Graham: The stupidest crimes imaginable]

Trump has spent years dismissing every investigation into him as a political witch hunt, so this should come as no surprise. But what has more recently become clear is that when he asserts that the charges against him are political, he isn’t actually critiquing the prosecutors for what he claims is their lack of independence, or suggesting that they should behave in a neutral and apolitical fashion. His claims that the inquiries are “politically motivated” are neither pure bad faith nor pure projection (though they may be both in part).

Instead, they are something more sinister and more revealing: a promise—a promise that if allowed to return to office, he will implement a vision of law enforcement in which no separation exists between prosecutors and political leadership, including the president. In the short term, this would mean benefits for Trump and his friends, and punishment for his enemies. But the long-term consequences would be much more dramatic: the abandonment of the core value of equal justice under law.

Viewed in the full context of the Trump presidency and the Trump reelection campaign, Trump’s charge of “political prosecution” seems to be in service of two related and complementary goals. The first is to convince the public that law enforcement and the administration of justice are inherently political, and thus that the charges against him can’t be trusted. There’s some evidence that this is working: A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll found that 47 percent of the public believes that the charges against Trump are “politically motivated.”

The second, related purpose is to begin to prime the public to accept the fundamental changes Trump would like to make to federal law enforcement, and maybe to federal government more broadly, if given the chance. The irony, of course, is that these changes are designed to make law enforcement and government more political. But if Trump is successful enough in destroying the public’s trust and confidence in federal law enforcement, he may encounter little resistance in seeking to radically reshape core features of American governance.

Here the evidence of what Trump would like to do is crystal clear. Trump has explicitly pledged to weaponize the DOJ against political adversaries, telling supporters on the very day of his federal arraignment that he would “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after” President Joe Biden and his family. He’s indicated that in a second term he’d bring back loyalists such as Jeffrey Clark, a key DOJ ally in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And he has begun to preview the position that all federal employees should serve at the pleasure of the president, which could mean the elimination of long-standing protections that insulate members of the civil service from politically motivated reprisal or removal.

[David A. Graham: Justice comes for Hunter Biden]

All of this is an extension of what was on display throughout Trump’s presidency. This is a man who, as president, regularly flouted norms of separation between his personal or partisan interests and those of the American government. He was also singularly focused on attacking the career civil service, which he referred to as the “deep state.” He inveighed constantly against the “shadowy cabal” that he suggested was seeking to undermine him, and he worked to weaken standards of independence and nonpartisanship inside the federal government. Late in his term in office, he issued an executive order purporting to create a new federal-employment status, “Schedule F”; had it gone into effect, this order would have allowed political appointees to reclassify large swaths of the civil service in order to bring them under political control.

So when Trump calls these prosecutions “political,” he’s offering a candid account of his understanding of the relationship between the president and federal prosecutors—that federal prosecutors, like all federal employees, are subject to the directive authority of the president, and so Biden must be behind the pursuit of Trump. Trump’s complaint actually isn’t about this as an ordering principle—it’s that at the moment, he isn’t in a position to leverage the power of the state for his personal benefit. This claim may sound startling, but it follows naturally from Trump’s brand of right-wing populism, one that that offers a narrow vision of who is authentically a member of the polity—his supporters—and pledges to both represent and protect that circumscribed population against a shifting “other”: liberals, the media, prosecutors in Democratic administrations. As Trump recently promised supporters, “I am the only one that can save this nation because you know they’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you. And I just happened to be standing in their way. And I will never be moving.”

These views are in profound tension with core features of the American political and constitutional tradition—which since at least the late 19th century has emphasized the importance of nonpartisanship and expertise in the federal government in general, and in law enforcement in particular. But Trump is not alone in dissenting from the consensus. GOP-primary hopeful and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has suggested that long-standing norms of DOJ independence are inconsistent with the Constitution. Work by Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Representative Jim Jordan on the “weaponization” committee has sought to use congressional-oversight authority to bully and intimidate career officials.

The Trump camp’s response to the news of Hunter Biden’s agreement to plead guilty to two counts of tax evasion, and to accept a diversion agreement to avoid gun charges, is revealing on this score. For years, Trump has fixated on the DOJ’s failure to prosecute Hunter Biden as evidence of political favoritism. Now that Hunter Biden has been charged, and has pleaded guilty, Trump has shifted to accusations that the plea terms are excessively lenient, attributable to—you guessed it—political favoritism. The fact that the investigation and charging decisions were made by Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a Trump appointee whom Biden asked to remain in office, is immaterial, as is the fact that the FBI is still run by Christopher Wray, who was handpicked by Donald Trump; so is the fact that on many accounts these charges are harsher than those that would have been brought against an individual guilty of similar conduct but with a different last name.

[David A. Graham: This indictment is different]

All of this contrasts profoundly with President Biden’s handling of his son’s legal difficulties. Biden has bent over backwards to abide by essential bipartisan norms of law-enforcement independence and insulation from political interference. His retention of a Trump appointee as the top Delaware prosecutor was clearly driven by a desire to ensure that the Hunter investigation would be carried out by someone he had not chosen. His decision to permit John Durham to complete his investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation was similar, as was his hands-off approach to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of special counsels to investigate the handling of classified materials by both former Vice President Mike Pence and President Biden himself.

In addition to making these personnel decisions, both Biden and Garland have held their silence on politically sensitive investigations. Biden’s lone remarks about his son’s prosecution pledged love and support “as he continues to rebuild his life.” He has maintained a studied silence on Trump’s indictment, and by all accounts intends to continue it.

In all of this, President Biden has offered, through deeds more than words, a different model of governance. His silence and discretion are admirable, and they grow out of a principled commitment to avoiding any hint of political meddling in sensitive law-enforcement matters. Two strikingly different visions are on offer when it comes to the future of the relationship between law enforcement and politics.

The trouble is, the two visions are not equally apparent. Trump’s vision is on stark display; Biden’s approach is more notable for its lack of action—the refusal to comment, his decision to remain hands-off. Americans have to note these absences as collectively the presence of something else: a demonstrated commitment to a functional system of depersonalized, impartial justice. But Biden’s approach should not be misunderstood as inaction or passivity. It is, rather, an active and considered attempt to preserve the principle that, as Special Counsel Jack Smith put it when announcing the Trump indictment, there is “one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.”

How "The Bachelorette" captured hearts and made it to season 20 on ABC

Quartz

qz.com › how-the-bachelorette-captured-hearts-and-made-it-to-s-1850578661

The 20th season of The Bachelorette premieres in the US tonight (June 26). This season features Charity Lawson, a 27-year-old family therapist from Columbus, Georgia. It isn’t her first time on the show—she placed fourth on the 27th season of The Bachelor, the dating-for-keeps reality show that led to a Bachelorette

Read more...

Finding Common Cultural Ground With Your Kids

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 06 › frank-foer-culture-concerts-daughter › 674521

This story seems to be about:

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Good morning. Before we turn to the Sunday culture edition of this newsletter, here are some of our writers’ most recent stories to help you make sense of the situation in Russia.

Why didn’t the Wagner coup succeed? Prigozhin planned this. The coup is over, but Putin is in trouble.

Welcome back to The Daily’s Sunday culture edition, in which one Atlantic writer reveals what’s keeping them entertained.

Today’s special guest is Atlantic staff writer Franklin Foer. Frank is currently at work on a book about the first two years of the Biden presidency; he has recently written for The Atlantic about controversies in the book world and the act of psychoanalyzing American presidents. He’s currently reliving a transcendent music experience he shared with his daughter, wishing he could find a TV show as good as Succession—especially in the art of “sibling razzing”—and watching Bill Nighy any time he graces the screen.

First, here are three Sunday reads from The Atlantic:

Go ahead, try to explain milk. The ghost of a once era-defining show How the vape shops won

The Culture Survey: Franklin Foer

Something delightful introduced to me by a kid in my life: When my oldest daughter was 3, I made a determined effort to teach her how to eat with a fork and knife, culturally speaking. I bought used VHS copies of one of the most improbable shows in the history of network television, Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra, in which a dashing Leonard Bernstein sweeps the hair from his face as he attempts to explain classical music to a CBS audience in the 1960s. For nearly two whole minutes, I managed to coerce her to sit on the couch with me in front of the black-and-white broadcast. Then she broke free and changed the channel to The Backyardigans.

I thought about this doomed experiment in parental pedantry recently because my daughter is now 18. A few weeks back, she graduated from high school, and she’s off to college in the fall. Just before the beginning of her second semester of senior year, we vowed (or was I coercing her again?) to watch every movie on the newly released Sight and Sound list of all-time greatest films. We were going to start with Chantal Akerman’s Jeanne Dielman, the surprise at the top of the rankings. A family member dismissed the project as hopelessly pretentious, and sure enough, this plan didn’t fare any better with my daughter than my attempt to foist Bernstein on her.

But one of the joys of her teenage years has been our cultural convergence. Because she’s an enthusiast for gardening, a couple of months back, we jointly curated a Spotify playlist of songs about plants, which happens to be a ubiquitous musical metaphor.

During her senior year, we started going to concerts together for acts we both liked—to Big Thief and Phoebe Bridgers, to see a group from New Zealand called The Beths. (Expert in a Dying Field is the impeccable title of The Beths’ most recent album.) For Chanukah, she bought us tickets for a brassy Brooklyn group called Rubblebucket. I had barely heard of it. But attending the concert was one of the great musical experiences of my life. The band was exuberant—horns blaring, lead singer pushing her anaerobic capacity with manic dancing—and so were we.

In their book, All Things Shining, the philosophers Hubert Dreyfus and Sean Dorrance Kelly argue that the transformative reading of Western classics—and moments of passionate engagement with culture—can help us rediscover purpose in a secular society, because it can supply a similar sensation of transcendence. (It’s a lovely short read.) They would call the experience of culturally induced sublimation “whooshing up.” At the 9:30 Club, with a band I barely knew, my daughter and I were, in fact, whooshing up. Because I knew that moment of fatherhood was so fleeting, it felt genuinely ecstatic.

The culture or entertainment product my friends are talking about most right now: I find it annoying how many conversations return to the inadequacy of television after Succession. They are annoying because they are true. Every suggestion for a replacement is impoverished by comparison.

Like many couples, my wife and I will frequently watch shows on our devices at our own pace. (Yes, it’s a mark of my selfishness—and my inability to pass the marshmallow test—that I annoyingly race ahead.) She’s still making her way through Season 4. I’m rewatching episodes with her just so I can study the poetry of familial teasing. It takes characters uninhibited by superegos and morality to realize the literary heights of the sibling-razzing genre. [Related: The Succession plot point that explained the whole series]

An actor I would watch in anything: Bill Nighy. I would even watch him as a catatonic English civil servant confronting his own mortality. That’s the conceit of Living, which just began streaming on Netflix. Kazuo Ishiguro wrote the screenplay, which is an adaptation of a Kurosawa film, which is an adaptation of a Tolstoy novella. The movie is borderline sappy but saved by its Englishness. In moments of catharsis, it pulls back just enough to stay classy, unable to fully express its emotions.

It’s disturbing to see Nighy play a character so old and inhibited, because he’s a balletic actor, usually bursting with charm. I love to watch him walk across the screen. He packs a Russian novel’s worth of character into his gait.

I’m an evangelist for his turn in the Worricker Trilogy, a series of BBC thrillers written by David Hare. The series is about the War on Terror. Nighy is a rogue MI5 agent who seeks to undermine the power-mad Tony Blair–like prime minister, played by Ralph Fiennes. For whatever reason, nobody seems to have ever heard about this miniseries, but it’s sitting there on Apple TV. [Related: The movie that helped Kazuo Ishiguro make sense of the world]

Something I recently rewatched, reread, or otherwise revisited: After Martin Amis’s death, I picked up a copy of his “novelized autobiography,” Inside Story, that was lying in the middle of a pile in the bedroom. It’s a book very much about mortality—that of his friends (Christopher Hitchens and Saul Bellow) and his own. Reviewing the book in The Atlantic, my colleague James Parker wrote, “He wants to lance the moment with language, and he wants his language to live forever.” Reading Amis’s own farewell, at the book’s end, it’s impossible to believe that it won’t. [Related: Jennifer Egan: I learned how to be funny from Martin Amis.]

My favorite way of wasting time on my phone: Searching for rumors about which players Arsenal Football Club might buy this summer.

The arts/culture/entertainment event I’m most looking forward to: I can’t wait to see the postponed Philip Guston exhibit at the National Gallery. The fact that this show was delayed has always struck me as the most ridiculous culture-war skirmish of our time.

The Week Ahead

California, a Slave State, a new book by Jean Pfaelzer that explores the history of slavery and resistance in the West (on sale Tuesday) The Bachelorette’s 20th season, featuring Charity Lawson, a 27-year-old therapist and the fourth Black Bachelorette in the show’s history (premieres on ABC this Monday) Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, which features Harrison Ford’s final performance in the role, alongside a performance from Phoebe Waller-Bridge (in theaters Friday)

Essay

Peter Garritano for The Atlantic

The Elegant, Utterly Original Comedy of Alex Edelman

By Adrienne LaFrance

In the long and checkered history of possibly terrible impulse decisions, here’s one for the ages: A few years ago, the comedian Alex Edelman decided on a whim to show up uninvited to a casual meeting of white nationalists at an apartment in New York City, and pose as one of them. Why? He was curious. He wanted to see what it would be like to be on the inside of a gathering that would never have knowingly included him, given that he is Jewish.

Read the full article.

More in Culture

The radical reinvention of The Bear The real lesson of The Truman Show Pixar’s talking blobs are becoming more and more unsatisfying. The Valley girl, like, totally deserved better. Nine books that will actually make you laugh

Catch Up on The Atlantic

How a trip to the Titanic ended in tragedy Trump seems to be afraid, very afraid. Why not Whitmer?

Photo Album

A dog sits on its owner's belly during a mass yoga session on International Yoga Day in New York City's Times Square on June 21, 2023 (Spencer Platt / Getty)

Solstice celebrations at Stonehenge, a mass yoga session in New York City, and more in our editor’s selection of the week’s best photos.

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

A Star Reporter’s Break With Reality

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › magazine › archive › 2023 › 07 › lara-logan-60-minutes-correspondent-conspiracy-theories › 674168

This story seems to be about:

Illustrations by Alicia Tatone

The footage is shown before she takes the stage: Lara Logan in a headscarf, addressing the camera from the streets of Mogadishu. Logan ducking for cover as bullets crack overhead in Afghanistan. Logan interrogating a trophy hunter in Texas. Logan walking with Christine Lagarde, Justin Trudeau, Mark Wahlberg, Jane Goodall.

It is a tour through Logan’s past life as a journalist for CBS’s 60 Minutes, a glimpse at the various exchanges and explosions that earned her the awards and a “prominent spot,” as her former network once put it, “among the world’s best foreign correspondents.” Then, three minutes and one second later, it is over. Cut to right now, February 27, 2023, in Fredericksburg, Texas: Logan looking out at 200 people gathered in a creaking church auditorium for the inaugural meeting of the Gillespie County chapter of Moms for Liberty.

“If you want to know why it’s called social media,” Logan says, “I’ll tell you why: Because Karl Marx was hired by Henry Rothschild, by the Rothschild family, to develop a system of social control. So when you see social, it is a form of control—that’s all it is. Social media is a form of controlling us all.”

She goes on, picking up on the title of a recent book by a friend of hers, retired General Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser and a far-right conspiracy theorist: “So what does fifth-generation warfare really mean?” It means that “you’re meant to believe the narrative, regardless of the truth.”

For the next 45 minutes, Logan, wearing a floral wrap dress and a cream-colored cardigan, lays out what she sees as the true narrative: for instance, that by aiding Ukraine, America is arming Nazis; that the events of January 6 were not an insurrection at all. Turning to The New York Times to understand this moment, Logan warns, is “like being in the battle of Normandy, on the beaches of Normandy, Dunkirk, and going on your knees every day and crawling over to the Nazi lines and asking them to please write nice things about your side in German propaganda.” Her dress is decorated with two identical navy-blue stickers reading STOP WOKE INDOCTRINATION.

As Logan talks, her words at times eliciting applause, the final frame of the introductory footage hovers ghostlike in the background. Logan’s success at events like this—she now features at many—turns on her ability to shrink the distance between her past and present selves. She needs the people in this auditorium to believe that the woman on the projector screen is the same one who now anticipates their fears of woke indoctrination. She needs them to trust that when she talks about subjects like the “little puppet” Volodymyr Zelensky, or how COVID vaccines are a form of “genocide by government,” or how President Joe Biden’s administration has been “participating in the trafficking of kids,” it is with the precise rigor and dispassion she once displayed on the front lines of America’s wars.

Logan, who is 52, is still, after all, a war correspondent. That is how she sees it. The fighting may not be in Afghanistan or Iraq, and she may not be winning Emmys for her coverage anymore, but in her mind this is her most crucial assignment yet, uncovering this “war against humanity.” And she must be getting close to the real story, because the American media have tried to silence her from all sides.

First CBS, and then Fox News. Not even the far-right Newsmax wants journalists who risk piercing the narrative. In October, during an appearance on that network, Logan declared that “the open border is Satan’s way of taking control of the world” and that the global elite “want us eating insects” while they “dine on the blood of children.” Newsmax condemned her remarks and announced that it had no plans to invite Logan on its shows again.

Logan’s life has been rife with personal trauma, some of it well known. In 2011, she was gang-raped in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. In 2012, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. In 2013, a story she reported for 60 Minutes was publicly disavowed. I went to Fredericksburg, where Logan now lives, on that February evening because I wanted to know what had happened in the decade since. I wanted to understand how, after years of association with the tick-tick-tick of 60 Minutes, she had slipped into a world bracketed by MyPillow discount codes and LaraLoganGold.com. How a career built on pursuing the truth had become so unmoored from it.

When I had contacted Logan about an interview, her response, via text message, was: “Unfortunately I have no doubt this is another hit piece desperately seeking to discredit several decades of award-winning work at 60 Minutes, CBS, ABC, NBC and beyond and you are only seeking my voice to add legitimacy to the anonymous cowards you will use to attack me once again. Feel free to use this statement if you are sincere.” She then shared a screenshot of our exchange with her 530,000 Twitter followers.

And so I braced for an unpleasant encounter when I approached Logan at the end of the night, after the long line of grandmothers and mothers and teenage girls who wanted a photo with her had finally dwindled. I introduced myself and said that I had seen probably every story she had ever done for 60 Minutes. “But here you’ve come,” she said. “Here you’ve come to destroy it all.”

She has been described in terms of hazardous weather. A tornado whipped through Midtown Manhattan and there suddenly was Lara Logan, June 2008, striding high-heeled from the wings of The Daily Show. “She is the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News,” Jon Stewart announced, the studio audience cheering as he shook Logan’s hand and guided her to center stage. “You remind me of a young Ted Koppel,” he said.

Logan tilted her head back and laughed. “Dan Rather used to say that about me!”

Logan had begun her career as a full-time journalist 16 years earlier, fresh out of college and with a résumé consisting of two part-time newspaper gigs in her hometown of Durban, South Africa, along with a bit of swimsuit modeling. In her first days covering the post-apartheid landscape as a producer at Reuters Television in Johannesburg, Logan, then in her early 20s, had not exactly reminded anyone of a young Ted Koppel. “The word bimbo came up a lot,” one of Logan’s former Reuters colleagues told me. But opinions began to shift once fellow journalists saw her in the field. “It was a very, very intense time … She’s a fucking hard worker, and she takes risks,” the former colleague said. “She had incredible guts.” (This person, like most of the nearly three dozen other onetime colleagues or friends of Logan’s I interviewed, requested anonymity in order to speak candidly.)

By 30, Logan was a correspondent for the British morning show GMTV. She was working out of London on 9/11, and within days she was pleading with an embassy clerk for a fast-track visa to Afghanistan. At first, GMTV management seemed unsure what to make of it, this young woman apparently desperate to embed herself in al-Qaeda territory. Where would she sleep? What about a driver, security? She’d figure it out. She was en route to Kabul shortly after the first American air strikes that October.

It didn’t take long for Logan’s superiors to recognize the opportunity before them, the potential for their coverage of the biggest story on Earth to become an event unto itself. This was not just because Logan was a woman but because she was attractive. It is prudent to address this now, because the fact of Logan’s attractiveness would soon become unavoidable, the gathering resonance of her journalism inextricable from the public’s gathering interest in her appearance.

Logan had been in Kabul less than a month when her Independent Television News competitor Julian Manyon suggested in a Spectator essay that the “delectable” correspondent’s swift infiltration of Bagram Airfield and the upper ranks of the Northern Alliance was due to her “considerable physical charms.” Logan, he wrote, “exploits her God-given advantages with a skill that Mata Hari might envy.” Responding in a short dispatch for The Guardian, Logan parried adroitly. “If General Babajan smiles around me, perhaps it is because I offer him respect and attempt, at least, to talk to him in a non-demanding manner,” she wrote. “It’s not rocket science.”

The British tabloids, delighted to have located the sex in jihad so quickly, scrambled to build on the story. In the course of interviewing Logan’s mother at her home in Durban, a reporter got access to the swimsuit photos for which Logan had posed to earn extra cash while in high school and university. The photos soon appeared on the front pages of the Daily Record and The Mirror. At first Logan was furious, embarrassed. But then she decided to lean in, to fashion herself as the rare emblem of both harrowing journalism and unabashed femininity. The tip for the next Mirror splash (“Here’s a sight that would stop the Taliban in its tracks. War reporter Lara Logan relaxes on a deck chair in a sizzling swimsuit”) reportedly came from Logan herself. “She was the first field correspondent I ever met who sort of understood her brand, which was a really new thing at the time,” a producer at a rival network told me.

As her profile grew, Logan charmed feature writers with her willingness to talk, to play ball when they asked her about things as personal as the last time she’d had a “good snog.” She argued that not using her looks would be malpractice. “There isn’t a journalist alive who won’t admit to you they use every advantage they have,” she told The New York Times.

Alicia Tatone. Sources: Chris Hondros / Getty; Saul Loeb / Getty.

More fundamental to Logan’s success in Afghanistan, however, was the simple fact that she showed up when others didn’t. In addition to her GMTV job, Logan worked as a stringer for CBS News Radio, and just a few weeks after arriving in Kabul, she found herself the only CBS-affiliated reporter on hand to cover the Taliban’s rapid unraveling. The network aired her prime-time debut from the capital.

This was when Dan Rather saw a young Ted Koppel. An article in Vogue described Rather as the first to urge CBS to hire Logan full-time. He marveled at her ability to “get through the glass,” as he told the magazine. “The good ones,” he said, “always want the worst assignments.” By spring 2002, Logan had a $1 million contract with the network.

Her new colleagues understood the appeal. “She knows how to position herself, she knows how to relate to the camera—she’s incredibly good at that,” Philip Ittner, a former CBS producer who worked with Logan, told me. “She was also very good under fire. Even in a very bad firefight or something, after an IED exploded, she would get in front of the camera, and she’d be able to deliver.”

But then there was the tornado of it all. “She likes to stir stuff up, unconsciously,” the former Reuters colleague told me. “Wherever she goes, there’s a lot of kinetic energy that’s not necessarily net positive.”

Logan grew up one of three children in a well-off white family in apartheid South Africa. She enjoyed snacks prepared by housekeepers and a swimming pool in the backyard and the tacit belief that her parents had only ever existed, and indeed would only ever exist, in relation to each other. And then one morning when she was 8, her father pulled into the driveway and Logan raced out to greet him and there in the car was a 5-year-old girl she had never seen before. Say hello to your sister, her father said. He was leaving to be with this other daughter and her mother.

“It was such a shock, such a traumatic experience,” Logan later recalled. After the divorce, she watched her mother struggle to reassemble the pieces of her life. Yolanda Logan moved her young children into a small apartment and found work as a sales representative at a glass company, never remarrying. “I learned about betrayal and dishonesty,” Logan told the Sunday Mirror soon after returning to London from Kabul. “When I looked at Mum, I saw a woman who thought she was secure and safe in her marriage suddenly alone.”

That was how Logan explained it when the Mirror reporter asked why she was so willing to pitch herself into danger as a journalist. “I’m afraid of being seen as vulnerable,” she said. “All my life, I’ve been fighting to prove that I’m not weak.”

She refused orders from CBS to keep out of Iraq during the American invasion in 2003, hiring local fixers to sneak her across the Jordanian border. On the drive into Baghdad, she played Van Morrison. With virtually every other American television broadcaster evacuated from the city, “shock and awe” was hers. One of Logan’s early segments for the relatively short-lived Wednesday edition of 60 Minutes showed a Humvee she was in flip over when it hit a land mine; in a Sunday segment, viewers saw Logan defy a vehicle commander’s orders to stay put as he went to inspect an unexploded bomb. In 2005, the Times christened her the “War Zone ‘It Girl’ ”; in 2006, CBS elevated her to chief foreign correspondent.

Whether Logan was daring or heedless depended on whom you asked—and, as is typical in the environs of television news, a great many of her colleagues enjoyed being asked. Some felt that Logan showed undue deference to the military line; others groused about what they saw as stubbornness and self-absorption. Still others watched Logan peer down at an unexploded bomb and saw not bravery as much as recklessness. At a certain point, “a lot of people refused to produce her,” one of her former producers told me.

If, for Logan, this was not cause for introspection, it was perhaps because her approach was winning a lot of awards. (In her first six years at CBS, she picked up Gracie Awards and Murrow Awards and an Emmy.) And if, for Logan, the New York Post article headlined “Sexty Minutes” had not been cause for alarm, it was perhaps because Jeff Fager, then the executive producer of 60 Minutes, had hung a framed copy of the article in his office. “It’s hard to judge what Lara Logan is going to be in 10 years,” Fager told Broadcasting & Cable magazine in the fall of 2008. “But boy, she’s made a mark in a short period of time.”

And yet, for as long as Logan had craved precisely this level of success, she also seemed uncomfortable with having actually attained it—as if to accept life as it presented itself to her, the way her mother once had, risked revealing it to be a trick of the light. She spoke sometimes of unspecified plans to derail her career. “I’m sure people are interested in seeing me fail,” she said shortly after joining CBS. She detected threats where no threats were intended. In 2006, when reviewing Katie Couric’s premiere as the first solo female anchor on a major-network evening news show, the Times pronounced that “the woman who stood out the most” was not Couric herself, but rather the “experienced and unusually pretty” CBS war correspondent. The unwanted comparison with her senior colleague seemed only to reinforce Logan’s inchoate sense of being conspired against. “I always think it is some kind of secret plot to destroy me,” she told Vogue in 2007. “I mean, to disparage the anchor at my expense?”

This dim, diffuse paranoia would sharpen, according to some colleagues, after the start of Logan’s relationship with the man who is now her husband, Joe Burkett.

Logan was married for the first time in 1998—to Jason Siemon, an American who played professional basketball in the United Kingdom. She met Joseph Washington Burkett IV, a Texas native and an Army sergeant who was also married, a few years later, while reporting in Kabul. Early 2008 found them working again in the same city, this time Baghdad. Logan was now in the final stages of a divorce and Burkett was newly estranged from his wife. He quickly became a regular presence in the press compound outside the Green Zone.

It was not clear to Logan’s colleagues what Burkett did for a living, and Burkett seemed to prefer it that way. He cultivated an air of secrecy, dropping hints that he was involved in clandestine operations. Logan seemed drawn in by the mystery of Burkett and his “very secretive job,” as she once called it. It was a while before Logan’s colleagues learned that Burkett had been in Baghdad on behalf of the Lincoln Group, a now-defunct firm quietly contracted by the Pentagon to disseminate pro-America propaganda in Iraqi newspapers. But they needed only a few conversations to register his penchant for conspiracy theories.

As Logan’s relationship with Burkett progressed, some of her colleagues noticed slight shifts in her story ideas. “As much as she would occasionally come up with loony tunes stuff on her own, it would always be more of, like, ‘Hey, let’s go right into the most dangerous part of’ whatever environment they were currently covering,” Philip Ittner told me. “But when Burkett came on the scene, it was like—and this is a hypothetical—‘Clearly the CIA is bringing in hallucinogens to put into the water supply of Baghdad; we really need to dig into this.’ ” (Logan declined to answer questions about herself, her husband, or other topics related to this article. In response to a list of factual queries and requests for comment that The Atlantic sent her, Logan wrote, “You are a hundred percent wrong on everything.”)

Logan and Burkett were wed in November 2008; Logan was seven months pregnant with their first child. They began married life in a house they bought in the Cleveland Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

On the evening of February 11, 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, Logan threaded through the congested streets of Cairo. She, her cameraman, her security guard, and her producer had come straight from the airport, as she later recounted on 60 Minutes, having landed just moments after President Hosni Mubarak announced his resignation. “It was like unleashing a champagne cork on Egypt,” she recalled.

Logan’s agent, Carole Cooper, had advised against the trip; only a week earlier, Logan and her crew had been detained overnight by Egyptian officials targeting journalists. But now, in Tahrir Square, thousands of people were singing, chanting, unfurling flags. For more than an hour she reported from the crowd, people smiling and waving at the camera. Then the camera’s battery went dead. The light illuminating Logan and the people around her was suddenly gone. A few moments later, Logan felt hands on her body. She thought that if she screamed loud enough, the assault would stop, but it didn’t.

[Read: Brutal assault on CBS’s Lara Logan in Egypt shows risks to female reporters]

The mob tore off her clothes. For a few minutes she managed to hold on to her security guard’s arm, but then, like everyone else in her crew, he was beaten back. This was when Logan thought she was going to die. Later she would recall for Newsweek how the men raped her with their hands, with sticks, with flagpoles. Onlookers took photos with their cellphones. The assault lasted at least 25 minutes before a group of Egyptian women intervened. They were able to cover Logan until soldiers managed to reach her and get her to her hotel, where she was seen by a doctor.

The next morning, Logan was on a flight home to her husband and two young children in Washington. She would spend four days in the hospital. People from all over the world sent flowers and letters. President Barack Obama called her to share his support. Logan’s eventual decision to talk openly about what happened inspired other women in journalism to share their own stories of being sexually assaulted while on the job. After she spoke out, the Committee to Protect Journalists launched a major effort to survey the problem and stigma of sexual violence in the field.

Over time, the most obvious reminders of Logan’s assault—the hand-shaped bruises all over her body—faded. For years afterward, however, as she told the Toronto Star, Logan would continue to cope with internal injuries—severe pelvic pain, a hysterectomy that failed to heal. And there was the emotional damage. Logan talked about problems of intimacy with her husband, the dark memories that could sweep over her with a single touch.

A little over a year after the assault, Logan, at 41, was diagnosed with Stage 2 breast cancer; she underwent a lumpectomy and six weeks of radiation, then went into remission. It was during this period of her life, Logan would say, that she “wanted to come apart.” She felt herself in a situation where “nobody could see it and nobody could see me and nobody understood.” She began suffering panic attacks. She tried therapy.

[Read: It’s more dangerous than ever to be a female war reporter]

Through it all, Logan found refuge in her career. In April 2013, a little more than two years after the assault, The Hollywood Reporter published a glowing feature on executive producer Jeff Fager’s 60 Minutes. The article depicted Logan as a confident correspondent striding into a screening for her next story, settling in beside Fager as he prepared to mark up the script. His verdict: “Terrific.” She could always make it back to terrific.

Until, that is, she couldn’t.

Not long after the Hollywood Reporter article, Simon & Schuster reached out to CBS with a pitch. A conservative imprint within the publishing company had a book coming out in the fall—The Embassy House—about Benghazi: the “real story,” as the prologue promised, of the deadly attack on the American compound and CIA annex in September 2012, as recounted by “the only man in a position to tell the full story.”

The man’s name was Dylan Davies, but he was writing under a pseudonym—for his safety, the book explained, and also because he had “no interest in seeking official recognition.”

Davies, a British-military veteran from Wales, was a security officer whose employer, Blue Mountain, had been hired by the State Department to help protect the Special Mission in Benghazi. In his book, he described how, on the night of the attack, he had scaled the compound’s 12-foot wall to try to save the Americans trapped inside, rifle-butting a terrorist in the process. He also said that he had seen Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s body at the hospital.

Logan and her producer, Max McClellan, agreed to consider The Embassy House for a feature on 60 Minutes. The basics of Davies’s biography appeared to check out; email correspondence that Davies shared with Logan seemed to confirm, as he claimed, that he had been interviewed by officials from across the U.S. government, including the FBI, about everything he had seen and heard and done that night. Over the next few months, Logan and McClellan put together a Benghazi segment featuring Davies’s story as well as original reporting on the attack. After the screening of the finished product, CBS and 60 Minutes leadership, including Fager, green-lit the broadcast for air.

Some of Logan’s reporting broke significant ground. No journalist had yet substantiated, for example, the role of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, an Ansar al‑Sharia leader and former Guantánamo Bay detainee, in the Benghazi attack; the Obama administration did not publicly announce his involvement until the next year. But the segment’s revelations were framed almost as sideshows to the Rambo-esque account of Davies, whose view of the attack comprised the majority of the report’s 15 and a half minutes.

Within days of the broadcast, his story began to unravel. The Washington Post reported that Davies had told his employer he wasn’t at the compound that night—something 60 Minutes had known but did not mention, accepting Davies’s explanation that he had lied to his employer. A week later, The New York Times revealed that Davies had also told the FBI that he wasn’t at the compound. Logan and McClellan knew that Davies had been interviewed by the FBI; they had not checked what he actually said. And when, after the Times report, they tried to reach Davies to demand answers, they couldn’t find him—The Daily Beast later reported that he had emailed his publisher saying that because of a threat against his family, he was going dark.

I was recently able to reach Davies via email. He claimed without evidence that his son’s life had been threatened by “the US state department (Clinton)” after the 60 Minutes report. (A spokesperson for Hillary Clinton denied the allegation and noted that Clinton had stepped down as secretary of state several months before the Benghazi report aired.) When I pressed him on whether he had told the FBI and 60 Minutes different versions of his story, he replied that he didn’t “want anything to do with Benghazi” and asked what was wrong with me.

Media Matters, the liberal watchdog group founded by the Clinton ally David Brock, seized on the controversy immediately, publishing no fewer than 36 stories highlighting problems in Logan’s reporting. Other outlets would point to a speech Logan had given a year earlier, in which she accused the Obama administration of perpetuating a “major lie” about the ongoing threat of al-Qaeda, as evidence of political bias.

On November 8, 2013, for the first time in her career, Logan went on air to announce the retraction of a story. “We were wrong,” she said. Simon & Schuster withdrew The Embassy House from sale later that day. For CBS, and Fager in particular, it was a colossal embarrassment—the program’s “worst mistake on my 10-year watch,” he wrote in a 2017 book. Logan would later say that a nondisclosure agreement she and McClellan had signed with the publisher had prevented them from checking Davies’s story with the FBI. It was an odd line of defense—Logan arguing that she had given up the right to verify key points. An internal CBS review concluded that problems with Davies’s account were “knowable before the piece aired.” Logan and McClellan agreed to take indefinite leaves of absence. (CBS News declined to comment on the Benghazi report and its aftermath.)

Sitting in her home in Cleveland Park during the leave of absence, Logan took calls from colleagues and tried to make sense of things. For the first time in her career, she was losing control of the narrative.

Logan soon learned that Joe Hagan, a writer at New York magazine, was working on a profile of her. Hagan’s article, titled “Benghazi and the Bombshell,” was published in May 2014. Hagan attributed the Benghazi mistake to a “proverbial perfect storm” of factors, including Logan’s reputed personal sympathies with the Republican line on the attack, and the “outsize power” she enjoyed at 60 Minutes thanks to Fager.

Logan would later file a lawsuit against Hagan and New York—a suit quickly dismissed by a federal judge. The complaint alleged that prior to publication of the “Hagan Hit Piece,” as Logan called it, Fager and CBS Chair Les Moonves had come up with a “specific and detailed plan” for her to return to 60 Minutes. According to the lawsuit, after the article appeared Moonves felt that he and Fager had been painted as Logan’s “lapdogs” and decided to shift course; Fager then informed her that she would return to the program in a “drastically altered role.” When she went back to work in June, her relationship with him was, she claimed in the suit, “irreparably damaged.” “She really felt hung out to dry,” a person formerly close to Logan told me. (Neither Fager nor Moonves responded to requests for comment.)

For Logan, reckoning frankly with the circumstances in which she now found herself would have meant accepting her own responsibility for creating them—accepting, in other words, the unextraordinary truth of the human capacity for poor judgment. But in the fall of 2014, a movie came out that helped Logan rewrite her narrative.

Based on a book by the journalist Nick Schou, Kill the Messenger tells the story of Gary Webb, a San Jose Mercury News journalist who, in 1996, published a blockbuster investigation that linked the CIA to America’s crack-cocaine epidemic by way of its relationship with the Nicaraguan contras. Although much of the reporting was solid, Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series also had serious flaws; the Mercury News eventually determined that the series “did not meet our standards” in several ways. Webb resigned from the paper not long afterward. He died by suicide in 2004. In the movie’s telling, the various news outlets that called Webb’s work into question were motivated less by a desire to correct the record than by petty jealousies and a longtime deference to the CIA.

It’s unclear whether Logan had ever heard of Webb before she saw the film. In many respects, their experiences were utterly unalike. Nevertheless, Logan seemed to cling to Webb as a kind of life raft, and would later invoke his name and story in interviews about her Benghazi report. (She also questioned whether Webb’s death had truly been a suicide.) Logan ultimately decided that Media Matters, in an effort to discredit the “substance” of the Benghazi report—about security flaws at the compound—had worked in concert with various media outlets to silence her. The problem, as she now saw it, was not that she had put an unverified account on air. It was that her report had dared to criticize the Obama administration. To use Webb’s own formulation—one that Logan repeats to this day—she had told a story “important enough to suppress.”

Alicia Tatone. Sources: Chris Hondros / Getty; Alex Wong / Getty.

In mid-2015, when Logan’s contract was coming up for renewal, CBS offered, and Logan accepted, a part-time correspondent role on 60 Minutes. Shortly after the contract was signed, she, her husband, and their children packed up their house in Washington and moved to Burkett’s hometown of Fredericksburg, Texas.

For most of her professional life, Logan had not struck her peers as especially political—“very moderate,” one former colleague called her. She now began to shape a new worldview, one steeped in antagonism toward the media establishment she felt betrayed by, and toward the figures and institutions she believed it served. It was a worldview that offered both absolution and purpose. And it was soon to find a partisan expression in Donald Trump.

On-screen, over the next two years, Logan seemed much the same journalist and person she’d always been. She continued to file stories from various countries for 60 Minutes. Off-screen, however, she was becoming closer to people like Ed Butowsky, a Fox News regular and Texas-based financial adviser of whom Logan was now a client. Butowsky would play a central role in the story of Seth Rich.

In July 2016, the murder of the Democratic National Committee staffer—in a botched robbery, police said—produced a torrent of right-wing conspiracy theories. Butowsky helped instigate an investigation that resulted in a Fox News story suggesting that Rich had been killed by Hillary Clinton associates in retaliation for supposedly leaking emails from the DNC to WikiLeaks. (Fox soon retracted the story and later settled a lawsuit brought by the Rich family. Butowsky settled a separate lawsuit brought against him by Rich’s brother.)

According to Facebook messages shared with The Atlantic, Logan, too, had been suspicious of the botched-robbery line, and saw in the episode another instance of the elite media providing cover for the left. In an April 2017 exchange with Trevor FitzGibbon, a left-wing public-relations strategist whose firm had represented WikiLeaks, Logan wrote that she did not know “for a fact” that Clinton’s associates were responsible for Rich’s murder. “But I would be stunned if it were not true.” No journalist had reported this, because “they”—presumably the Democrats—“own the media,” she wrote, and pointed to the fallout from her Benghazi report. “They saw me as a threat and went after me and the show.” A few months later, Joe Burkett attended a small gathering at Butowsky’s home at which, according to one attendee’s sworn deposition, the possibility of wiretapping Rich’s parents’ house was raised. (Butowsky has denied that this was ever discussed.)

Toward the end of 2018, CBS declined to renew Logan’s contract. She was likely not surprised. Logan later characterized her final four years at the network as isolating; executives who’d once supported her now treated her with “utter contempt.” (Fager and Moonves, as it happened, were both ousted at approximately the same time—Fager for sending a threatening text message to a CBS News reporter looking into #MeToo allegations against him and Moonves when a dozen women said he had sexually harassed or assaulted them. Both denied the sexual-misconduct allegations.)

[Read: Les Moonves and the familiarity fallacy]

In interviews, a number of Logan’s former colleagues expressed the belief that, in time, she would have been picked up by another network. Her 60 Minutes segment in 2015 on Christians in Iraq had won a Murrow Award; in 2017, she and her team won an Emmy for their report on the battle for Mosul. But what Logan’s messages with FitzGibbon seem to underscore is that, even if a continued career in mainstream media had been possible, she wasn’t necessarily interested in pursuing one.

Logan was creating, in effect, a new brand for herself. She unveiled it in early 2019, sitting down for a three-and-a-half-hour podcast interview with the former Navy SEAL Mike Ritland, whom she had once interviewed for 60 Minutes. Logan related the story of her life and offered a blistering critique of the mainstream media she had chosen to leave behind. In speaking out against what she saw as the media’s liberal bias, Logan told Ritland, she was committing “professional suicide.” She likened right-wing outlets such as Breitbart News and Fox to the “tiny little spot” where women are permitted to pray at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, while “CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever”—the “liberal” media—took up the rest of the space, reserved for men. The interview went viral, and Sean Hannity invited her on his show for a follow-up. “I hope my bosses at Fox find a place for you,” the host told her.

By the start of 2020, Logan had a deal with Fox News’s streaming service Fox Nation, for a series called Lara Logan Has No Agenda. Along with reported segments on subjects including illegal immigration and the dangerous advance of socialism in America, Logan would use her new role to build on her criticism of the media. One of Logan’s former producers remembers calling her around this time. “I was like, ‘You know, you’re talking about me … You’re talking about all these people who’ve worked with you—we’re part of some vast left-wing conspiracy? Like, seriously, you believe that?’ And she was like, ‘No, you don’t understand … You may not know you’re complicit—but you’re complicit.’ ”

As the months passed, Logan’s comments became more extreme. Eventually some of her closest friends from her former life could no longer stomach a phone call with her, knowing it might turn into a stem-winder on the virtues of Michael Flynn, who had admitted to lying to the FBI about his contact with the Russian ambassador. When Trump supporters mobilized to deny the results of the 2020 election, Logan was right there with them; she would work on a movie (financed by MyPillow’s Mike Lindell) about alleged voter fraud. After the January 6 insurrection, she rallied behind the people who were charged with taking part in it.

All of which seemed to culminate in an appearance on Fox News—in November 2021, as the country battled COVID—during which Logan compared Anthony Fauci, then the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. Fox stayed silent about the remarks but ultimately did not pursue a new season of Logan’s streaming show.

It was the sort of moment that those few friends left over from her old life thought might finally force a reckoning. Even her newer allies struggled to defend the remarks. (“Anytime you bring up a Nazi in anything, you’re kind of going off the reservation,” Ed Butowsky told me.) But by that point, Logan had come to seem firmly of the mind that setbacks, criticism, or a reproach of any sort were only evidence that she was doing something right. Carole Cooper, her agent—who, according to people familiar with their long relationship, had been like a second mother to Logan—dropped her. Less than a year later, Newsmax, where Logan often appeared on the commentator Eric Bolling’s weeknight show, washed its hands of Logan, following her riff on the global blood-drinking elite.

Logan was undeterred. The stakes, as she had come to see them, were simply too high. This is what she tries to communicate to people at the various local speaking gigs that now constitute much of her career, events such as the Park Cities Republican Women Christmas fundraising lunch in Texas, which she keynoted last year. “We had to cut her off because she was going too long,” one member who helped arrange the lunch recalled. The message was: “The world is on fire” and “your kids are being exposed to cats being raped” and “elections are stolen” and “we’ve lost our country.” The woman added, “It’s a Christmas lunch, mind you.”

The truth is that I had been nervous about approaching Logan on that February evening in Texas. Two weeks earlier, she had suggested on Twitter that I was engaged in a broader “strategic hit job” involving an effort to frame her as a Mossad asset. I did not know how she would respond to my presence at the Moms for Liberty event, which I paid $10 to attend. After my initial exchange with Logan, her manner softened, though she would not speak with me on the record.

In the past several years, I have written about a number of public figures on the right who believe very few of the things they profess to believe, who talk in public about stolen elections and wink at the specter of global cabals, and then privately crack jokes about the people who applaud.

I don’t think Logan is one of these figures. People who know her say the private person is also the public one. It was with sincere urgency that she recommended Flynn’s The Citizen’s Guide to Fifth Generation Warfare to her audience that evening. I Googled Flynn’s book as I waited to approach Logan. It is advertised almost as a self-help guide, the promotional copy encouraging Americans and “freedom loving people everywhere” to buy the volume to “understand the manipulation happening around you” and “why you feel the way you do.” “When I just saw General Michael Flynn,” Logan had told the audience, “he said to me—opening words—‘We’ve got maybe 18 months before we lose this country.’ ” She had nodded as many in the crowd vocalized their dismay. “This is not something you can pick and choose about whether you want to do.” She declared, “I’m not going to surrender. Even if they throw me in a prison and execute me—’til my last breath, I’m going to be fighting.”

In recent years, many Americans have embraced conspiracy theories as a way to give order and meaning to the world’s chance cruelties. Lara Logan seems to have done the same, rewriting her story as a martyrdom epic in the war of narratives. Five years after Logan departed CBS, few tethers remain to the woman on the projector screen. Executives and journalists who were once her greatest advocates have long since stopped talking to her and would prefer not to talk about her, either. “Respectfully, I would like to pass speaking on this subject. Best wishes,” Dan Rather wrote in a Twitter message when I reached out to him. Former friends who remember Logan as empathetic and generous now fear incurring the vitriol of a woman who frequently trashes critics and perceived enemies as “evil,” “disgusting,” “worthless.” The only former colleague of hers who was willing to be quoted by name in this article agreed to do so out of a sense of duty. “She is spreading Kremlin propaganda,” Philip Ittner told me. “And as somebody who is here in Ukraine, trying to fight back against the Russian information warfare, I can’t in good conscience just sit idly by.” It may be that saying nobody owns you, as Logan so often does, helps dull the reality that very few people claim you.

But the people at the event in Fredericksburg did claim her. After the speech was over, Logan talked one-on-one with dozens of audience members who seemed anxious to learn more about why they felt the way they did. She lingered until the very last person left the auditorium.

I think she stayed for as long as she did that night because she believes she has seen the light and wanted the people in the auditorium to see it too. I think she also stayed because the people there represent some of the only community she has left.

This article appears in the July/August 2023 print edition with the headline “A Star Reporter’s Break With Reality.” When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

How the Daytime Soap Opera Took Over Prestige Television

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2023 › 06 › soap-operas-influence-tv › 674337

Around the turn of the millennium, viewers of the daytime soap opera General Hospital may have noticed a shift in their favorite afternoon medical drama. The show, which had aired on ABC since 1963, had once been preoccupied with the titular hospital in the fictional city of Port Charles. Storylines in the ’90s were dedicated to socially relevant topics like a teenage couple navigating the HIV/AIDS crisis, a doctor dealing with her own breast-cancer diagnosis, and an adoptee tracking down her birth mother in adulthood. But in the early aughts, the soap’s gentle, humanistic notes gave way to machismo energy as it fixated on the dimpled mob don Sonny Corinthos (Maurice Benard) and those in his violence-ridden orbit. This about-face prompted the television critic Ed Martin to dub the show “Sopranos in the daytime.” Here was the ultimate indictment: One of daytime television’s crown jewels had become the Great Value knockoff of a prime-time masterwork.

Too often, General Hospital and its fellow daytime soaps—shows historically consumed and cherished by women and Black audiences—tend to get a bum rap from critics, who malign them as unworthy of respect. These days, slandering the soap opera is almost a form of punching down, considering how much the genre has fallen on hard times: Daytime soaps have been circling the drain for years, thanks to sagging ratings and slashed budgets. As if by miracle this spring, General Hospital celebrated its 60th anniversary, making it the longest-running scripted show on American television still in production, while CBS’s The Young and the Restless marked its 50th anniversary. Those two, along with CBS’s The Bold and the Beautiful, are the sole daytime soaps that remain on traditional American airwaves. (Last year, NBC jettisoned Days of Our Lives from its daytime network lineup, where it had been since 1965, and ferried it over to the streamer Peacock.) That’s a stark decline from the genre’s heyday in the early 1980s, when more than a dozen daytime soaps aired across ABC, NBC, and CBS; eight daytime soaps were on American television at the start of 2009, just before the wholesale purge of the genre began that year.

The watershed anniversaries of General Hospital and The Young and the Restless might provide an occasion to rue what’s become of the art form, but the strands of daytime soaps’ DNA are thriving elsewhere. They have a direct and obvious descendant in soaps that air at night, a category of television that has flourished since the 1960s with Peyton Place and the subsequent popularity of Dallas and Dynasty in the following decades. And nearly 20 years after Martin’s dig at General Hospital, the inverse of his observation holds true: Prime-time prestige darlings of this current television era—the kind you’d find airing on Sunday nights on premium television networks like HBO or Showtime—often borrow from and refine the style of daytime soaps. Once you identify the tropes that have buttressed daytime soap operas, you’ll spot them everywhere.

Let’s establish the hallmarks of daytime-soap storytelling. Even the most ardent devotees of the genre would admit that daytime soaps contain hairpin plot turns that defy logic. Major arcs on Days of Our Lives have dealt with satanic possessions; a storyline on General Hospital a few years ago involved a human’s memory being stored on a flash drive. Characters return from the dead after their corpses go cold. Plastic surgery gets wheeled out as an explanation for a role being recast and a startling lack of resemblance between two actors who inhabit the same character. Secret long-lost twins abound.

But at their finest, daytime soaps provide far more than pulpy pleasures. These shows, with their expansive canvases, have long explored thorny family dynamics across generations in a way few other genres have had breathing room for. They also use the grammar of exaggeration to moving effect. The ostentatious acting associated with daytime soaps—All My Children’s Susan Lucci and other grande dames of the small screen emoting with gale-force intensity—harkens back to classic Hollywood, where every Bette Davis or Joan Crawford knew how to wring emotional truth from extravagance. Soapy has long been a pejorative in the American vernacular, a byword for a piece of art that traffics in sappy schlock. But deploying that term can be more than a lazy way to sully an object’s artistic merit.

[Read: The unsung legacy of Black characters on soap operas]

The soapy spirit of absurdity courses through Showtime’s breakout hit Yellowjackets, a show that, as is customary of so many daytime soaps, centers the lives of women. Two timelines run parallel to each other; the first, in 1996, chronicles how the members of a New Jersey girls’ high-school soccer team fend for themselves after a plane crash strands them in the Canadian wilderness, while the second examines the aftershocks of their teenage trauma in the present day. Despite its pretense of seriousness, Yellowjackets doesn’t take long to freefall into preposterousness. Some viewers might still wonder how the girl whose face got mauled to pieces managed to heal within a few episodes, how another survivor could smash and destroy the aircraft’s ironclad black box (a device, mind you, that is engineered to withstand a literal plane crash), how the abandoned cabin where the team seeks shelter miraculously had enough pillows and blankets for each of the crash’s dozen-plus survivors.

But Yellowjackets, like any propulsive daytime soap, asks its audience to overlook any inconsistencies and instead submit to its base delights. The show is populated by characters who occupy a moral gray zone and engage in deliciously theatrical subterfuge, and Yellowjackets works best when it slyly unpeels the duality of these women. The frizzy-haired and bespectacled outcast Misty (played by Christina Ricci as an adult) might be the soapiest character of all. Her emotions shift on a dime: She is perky in one moment, sociopathically diabolical the next. Bullied as a teenager by the popular girls, she is still a loner longing for acceptance a quarter century later, but Yellowjackets resists making her too easy an object of sympathy. For example, she injects a cigarette with poison and hands it to a woman she’s kidnapped. Her actions seem stripped straight from the playbook of a soap-opera villain like Days of Our LivesKristen DiMera, a vixen whose demonic machinations are direct consequences of the untended wounds from her past.

Ridiculousness is in high supply in American prime time’s most popular scripted television show, Paramount’s Yellowstone, a show often tagged with the soap-opera label as a snide way of impugning its worth. Characters do outrageous things, like walking out of a just-bombed building and asking a passerby for a cigarette, that might make viewers raise eyebrows. But like any solid soap, part of Yellowstone’s bargain with the viewer is the demand that they suspend their disbelief. Yellowstone concerns John Dutton (Kevin Costner), the aging patriarch of the land-owning Dutton family in Montana, and the struggle over his legacy among his children. The tussle between Dutton and his spawn on that show resembles the bitter feuds among the Quartermaine family of General Hospital, a fractured clan of strong personalities who constantly find themselves at loggerheads. Some of Dutton’s children remain fiercely loyal to him; others, like Jamie (Wes Bentley), never quite feel adequate enough to gain Daddy’s approval. On Yellowstone, as in General Hospital, the siblings trade barbs and spew such venom at one another that one wonders how they could possibly ever have lived under the same roof. The show also provides splashy anvil-drop reveals—like, say, that Jamie isn’t John’s biological kid—whose consequences reverberate over seasons.

[Read: How Taylor Sheridan created America’s most popular show]

Denigrators have reductively dismissed Yellowstone as the downmarket, red-state cousin of HBO’s Succession, perhaps the most glimmering emblem of this current prestige era in television. The marital squabbles between Shiv (Sarah Snook) and her husband, Tom (Matthew Macfadyen), will ring familiar to anyone who’s endured the verbal sparring between General Hospital’s aforementioned Sonny and his on-again, off-again wife, Carly (played by four actresses throughout the span of the show), who cherish and despise each other in equal measure. For a time in the early aughts, Sonny and Carly’s shouting matches seemed to dominate each episode, just as the clashes between Shiv and Tom became crucial to Succession’s plots.

And longtime viewers of The Young and the Restless will recognize the melodramatic sweep of Succession’s basic conceit, with siblings warring over the future of a media conglomerate spearheaded by their father, Logan Roy (Brian Cox). Succession’s Waystar Royco has a daytime analogue in The Young and the Restless’s Jabot Cosmetics, a beauty brand begun by the family patriarch, John Abbott, and fought over by his children after his death. The tension between the Abbott siblings sometimes comes to a thrilling head: One scene from 2018 involves Jack (Peter Bergman) admonishing his sister, Ashley (Eileen Davidson), for besmirching the family’s legacy, and throwing their late father’s favorite chair through a glass wall before Ashley’s horrified eyes. The gesture is objectively hilarious—the kind of sequence that, shorn of context, might confirm prejudices against the genre of daytime soaps. But it’s not hard to imagine how such a scene might play on Succession, with its handsome HBO production values. Even brawls between the siblings—like the volcanic scene in the finale where Kendall (Jeremy Strong) lunges at Roman (Kieran Culkin) in a conference room—have a whiff of these high-octane daytime-soap sibling fights.

As Shiv, Snook gives a masterclass performance that’s reminiscent of daytime’s most indelible doyennes, refusing to blunt her character’s rough edges. Take the scene where, after Logan collapses on a plane, Tom holds a phone up to his ear and asks Shiv to say what may be her last words to him. The uncertainty over whether her father can actually hear her causes Shiv to cycle through a galaxy of feelings—disbelief, regret, heartbreak—within the span of minutes. Her choked reaction recalls a scene from the glory days of General Hospital in 1998, where the conniving, damaged Carly (then played by Sarah Joy Brown) tearfully monologues before the body of her deceased adoptive mother, with whom she had an acrimonious relationship. Snook, like Brown before her, doesn’t shy away from excess here: Her downpour of emotion feels torrential. Actorly indulgence of this nature, the kind one might find on a daytime soap, is precisely what lends this sequence in Succession its lasting power.

Succession seems to be aware of what it owes to daytime soap operas. There’s a scene in the show’s final season where the gruff Logan tells his kids he’s sad they didn’t come to his birthday party. “It's like a fucking telenovela,” Kendall sneers in response, likening his father’s rare display of vulnerability to the kind of outsized expression common on a Latin American daytime soap. This throwaway quip feels like a subtle nod to the genre that has left its imprint on a show like Succession. Even as the daytime soap careens toward extinction, a time may soon arrive when calling a creative work “soapy” is no longer an insult but a compliment, a way of paying tribute to an undersung art form whose influence might just outlive it.