The Runaway Reporter: McChrystal Revisited
Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone Magazine
Army Times (Sean Naylor) – Sources: Rolling Stone quotes made by jr. staff
Huffington Post (Jason Linkins) – Michael Hastings, Rolling Stone Reporter, Inks Book Deal With Little Brown
It looks increasingly like recently resigned General Stanley McChrystal is partly the victim of an ambitious, lefty, reporter who was motivated by political sentiments and the prospect of financial gain to seriously misrepresent the context of comments made during his profile interviews with General McChrystal and McChrystal’s staff. Michael Hastings implied that the most derogatory and offensive comments emanated from the senior officials in MChrystal’s inner circle ( flag officers and colonels) when they were allegedly offhand comments from junior officers assigned to clerical or orderly type duties. No word on when Hastings had begun his negotiations with publisher Little, Brown & co. but if he had begun before publication of “The Runaway General” it would seem to me to be a serious breach of journalistic ethics.
Let’s not hold our breath waiting for Rolling Stone to investigate the integrity of their reporter’s journalistic work.
As for General McChrystal, his staff has served him poorly, both by inviting a reporter with Hastings background and in trusting Hastings with colorful and highly damaging “off the record” statements in violation of basic military public relations practice and common sense. Captains and majors are certainly old enough to know better and someone higher up on McChrystal’s staff should have been alert to the possibility of a “hit piece” and run interference to make certain that the interviews were all on the record and professional and not conducted after hours in a bar with staff members drinking heavily. Senior staff are supposed to look out for their boss at that level.
That said, General McChrystal’s offense here, while still a serious gaffe, has a different and mitigated character from how matters first appeared and my previous criticism of him was harsher than his actions deserved.
July 9th, 2010 at 3:48 am
Warren Buffet frequently quotes the old adage, "If you’re playing poker and you don’t know who the patsy is after five minutes, you’re the patsy." If McChrystal was rolled by some low rent hippie from Rolling Stone, how successful was he going to be against the Taliban with its integrated media-military capability? He should have realized he was the patsy before the five minutes were up. McChrystal seems well qualified on the kinetic side and even the person-to-person glad-handling of WHAM. However, theater commanders should be as skilled with the media as they are with the bread and butter tactics of killing Taliban. McChrystal failed to meet that standard and his firing is a good step forward.
July 9th, 2010 at 4:01 am
Hi JF,
.
I agree, theater command was not something that McChrystal seemed naturally suited for in retrospect – there’s a heavy load of diplomatic and political responsibilities and he seemed to be the type of general who excelled most with the troops in the field in the midst of action but was uncomfortable outside of that environment. This was not his first political mistake of this kind. A fighting general, not an administrator.
July 9th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Disturbing, but in new way surprising.
For all the (rightful) criticism of Fox News et al. for bias, it should be remembered that before them, 60 Minutes or a similar outlet would pull a stunt like this, with nary a peep of protest.
July 10th, 2010 at 2:12 am
Actually, Hastings did not misrepresent anything significant. The belief that the comments were made by senior staff was irrelevant. The perceived fact was that McChrystal made these statements, which is not just embellishment, but just flat out false. As I noted when this first broke, it was the media that decided the facts. The media declared that McChrystal said derogatory statements – not just senior staff. As I challenged everyone to do when the story broke, show me those statements in the article. They’re not there. But people don’t look for their own facts. They rely upon the media. The media told us what the facts were. Those were the facts that were accepted. Even though they weren’t facts. Why is it significant that the comments were made by junior staff, rather than senior staff? Either way, the quotes were attributed to McChrystal because nobody questioned the media’s uniform misrepresentation. Now people are finally awakening from their trance and doing some background investigation? This is why I am a pessimist and a cynic.
July 11th, 2010 at 3:29 am
Not really a fan of Hasting’s bashing. When a badly executed war effort kills your fiancee (in Baghdad, in 07), its probably not about fame or dollars anymore.
July 12th, 2010 at 2:54 am
Hi Schmedlap,
.
"Why is it significant that the comments were made by junior staff, rather than senior staff?"
.
Is a political comment more significant if it comes from Obama’s White House gardener or from David Axelrod?
.
Hi Shlok,
.
Was not aware of that and it is unfortunate, but that fact makes axe grinding more likely rather than less.
July 12th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Zen,
I think you missed my point (I probably could have made it clearer). In either case, the comments were wrongly attributed to McChrystal. So why does it matter whether they were made by junior or senior staff? They were still wrongly attributed to McChrystal and that is what brought about his dismissal. That’s the real scandal.
July 14th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I believe you guys might be too close to the subject to be objective on this one. As for the Army Times, it was a hit piece anonymously sourced, although we are told some, but not how many or which, came from McChrystal’s personal spokesman (before or after he was fired?). Isn’t that rich? (Before you go ape that Hastings’ quotes were anonymous too, there is a difference. Hastings didn’t attribute them to protect the sources from punishment from the Army. The Army Times didn’t attribute them to protect the sources from scrutiny. Has anyone denied the quotes themselves? No, but if they did, Hastings would attribute them to defend himself. The Army Times will never attribute its sources.)
"E-mails obtained by Army Times appear to support the McChrystal side’s version of events." Well, isn’t that amazing? (sarcasm) Most of the points against Hastings brought up in the article are laughable, this one is even refuted within the article:
"No matter who uttered the quotes, by using them, Hastings violated ground rules that public affairs personnel had established with him, said a senior military official familiar with the trip." later: "Smith was aware of it, but left everything up to Boothby, who did not require Hastings to sign a document covering the ground rules of his embed, as virtually all journalists who embed with ISAF units in Afghanistan must. Boothby has resigned in the wake of the Rolling Stone article." The bottom line is this: "to have left McChrystal’s people with no hard evidence that Hastings broke them."
"an ambitious, lefty, reporter who was motivated by political sentiments and the prospect of financial gain" This is a classic ad hominem attack. As is "low rent hippie from Rolling Stone".
"Michael Hastings implied that the most derogatory and offensive comments emanated from the senior officials in MChrystal’s inner circle" Provide the quote from the article that implies this. The Army Times only cites one:
"A quote that rhymes the vice president’s surname with the phrase “bite me” is attributed to “a top adviser.”"
"it would seem to me to be a serious breach of journalistic ethics" Well, that’s fine, thanks for your opinion, anyone familiar with journalism ethics agree with you?
Let’s not hold our breath waiting for Army Times to publish on-the-record quotes from McChrystal’s entourage.
"Senior staff are supposed to look out for their boss at that level." I still gotta go with the boss is the most responsible.
And isn’t it glorious that the part of the article that describes how poorly the Afghanistan campaign is going has been virtually ignored?
July 14th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
hi Norwegian Shooter,
.
McChrystal is not off the hook with me, he granted the access and when it blew up in his face and that of the President he had to go. I’m just recognizing that to get the story he wanted Hasting’s painted a picture that departed from the reality – and may have had a significant financial incentive to do so.
.
"Well, that’s fine, thanks for your opinion, anyone familiar with journalism ethics agree with you?"
.
It’s actually a pretty simple test:
.
Postpriori book deal= Ethical.
.
A priori book deal with full disclosure to interview subjects and readers = Ethical.
.
A priori book deal where your ability to earn six figures from a third party is partly dependent upon the attention your news story will receive and you do not disclose that relationship to your readers or interview subjects = Unethical.
.
I am not sure which case represents Mr. Hastings, but I do know that when I read the Rolling Stone article his book deal was not public knowledge and knowing there was a financial interest present would have been useful in evaluating the merits of the article.
.