A question about The Rolling Stone General McChrystal story
In separate stories this morning (June-23-2010) on General Stanley McChrystal’s remarks about President Obama and his administration to Rolling Stone Magazine the New York Post in a editorial says
"Let’s be Clear allowing any reporter let alone one from Rolling Stone - the unfettered access to McChrystal and his staff that this one appears to have enjoyed was beyond dumb"
and New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd in her column today says
"So this General with the background in intelligence who is suppose to conquer Afghanistan can’t even figure out what Rolling Stone is " We’re not talking Guns & Ammos here : We’re talking the anti war hippie magazine "
Why do both views seem to be suggesting this is a (Shoot the Messenger) moment and it’s not General McChrystal and his aids comments that are at fault but Rolling Stone and writer Michael Hastings for publishing the story. If it is a Shoot the Messenger Moment then so be it it’s the price you pay for a open society with a free press.