Skip to main content

The Washington Post is deeply worried that Rolling Stone broke the rules:

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has made no public comment since President Obama relieved him of his Afghan war command Wednesday, silently taking his lumps for disparaging remarks he and his aides made about administration officials in the presence of a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine.

But the command has concluded from its own review of events that McChrystal was betrayed when the journalist quoted banter among the general and his staff, much of which they thought was off the record. They contend that the magazine inaccurately depicted the attribution ground rules for the interviews.

Betrayed, huh? Poor Stan.

Some commentators have questioned why McChrystal and his aides were being pilloried for complaints about Washington commonly heard in diplomatic and military facilities overseas. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Thursday that the atmosphere of disrespect for civilian leaders that McChrystal tolerated was grounds for dismissal regardless of the context in which the offensive comments were made or who made them.

Even worse, according to WaPo, Rolling Stone didn't give Stan the whole article for his review! What a shame! Aren't reporters supposed to let their subjects rewrite the news?

In all seriousness, what's the point of this article? Even if McChrystal's comments really were off the record, does The Washington Post believe that he was an innocent victim of a media screwjob? If so, then why did they get rid of David Weigel after someone broke his confidence? If it's okay for McChrystal, shouldn't it be okay for Weigel?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:40 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Loose lips sink ships. Sorry, Stan. nt (15+ / 0-)

    It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. --FDR

    by Rube Goldberg on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:43:46 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of public figures who say dumb things... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timaeus, chillindame

    But guess who's now on the Hidden Comments List?

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:44:19 PM PDT

    •  Geez. How the mighty have fallen. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie

      I wonder if he'll do a KO style TTFN.

      •  I strongly suspect that it was a staffer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Timaeus

        Who might be facing his own McChrystal moment soon. As he/she should.

        "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

        by kovie on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:52:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One of the great ironies of WaPo's weeping and (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Timaeus, IM, vcmvo2

          gnashing of teeth over Rolling Stone's alleged breaking of the rules

          The official, one of many subject to a Pentagon advisory not to discuss the situation without authorization, spoke on condition of anonymity. He said he was motivated by what he described as untrue claims made by Rolling Stone.

          Apparently the rule according to WaPo is "Do as I say, not as I do."

          I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

          by DaNang65 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:02:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Let me close your snark tag... (0+ / 0-)

        Point me to a lawyer who gives a fuck about their TU status here? ;^)

  •  McChrystal was betrayed (14+ / 0-)

    By all that pesky listening to what he said.

    What a mockery of a newspaper the Washington Post is.

  •  WaPo... (14+ / 0-)

    Thy name is hypocrisy.

    ======

    "Sick Around the World"

    http://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

    Watch it, send it along to all you know.

    by oxfdblue on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:44:34 PM PDT

    •  That's a fact! (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, mightymouse, Matt Z, ezdidit, foufou

      howie "the putz" kurtz calls out journalists all the time (albeit in his chats, not his column) for not disclosing other relationships they have, but had to be hauled kicking and screaming to disclose to his readers that he works for CNN too. And that's just the tip of the hypocritical iceberg with that fool. The scary part is that he represents his bosses well. I shudder to think of the hypocrisy they are guilty of and that we'll never know about.

      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

      by dougymi on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:51:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe Not. Looks Like They Submit THEIR Articles (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, dougymi

      for full Pentagon review before publishing, at times.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:03:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mullen's comment is important (11+ / 0-)

    It's no accident that the President is the Commander-in-Chief.  It isn't necessarily that the Framers expected Presidents to be military geniuses.  The point is that like it or not, the military is subordinate to the civilian authority.

  •  Poor, poor WAPO (9+ / 0-)

    Trying to play catch-up with the real journalists at, of all places, Rolling Stone... How sad they can't keep pace with Rolling Stone's ever-increasing credibility.

    But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor. (1776)

    by banjolele on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:44:54 PM PDT

  •  I am shocked and awed that the military managed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sara seattle, shpilk, vcmvo2

    to find a way to exonerate a high level officer.  I guess those bad apples are growing in all sorts of orchards these days.

    Does our military brass even know or care how much damage they do every time they exonerate one of their peers in this way?

    If government is small enough to drown in a bathtub, then it's too small to clean up the Gulf.

    by electricgrendel on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:45:27 PM PDT

  •  WaPo is not exactly Dr. Ethics (13+ / 0-)

    Seriously, what business do they have commenting on ethics?

    For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

    link

    The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. Prosecute the crime.

    by Positronicus on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:45:30 PM PDT

  •  ah the treachery - I love it! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sara seattle, msmacgyver

    "Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell" - Edward Abbey

    by stormserge on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:46:08 PM PDT

  •  WaPo got embarrassed by a pseudo-rock rag.... (6+ / 0-)

    ...that's why they're trying to tear the story down.

    Still, I think the PR person who arranged the story was truly incompetent. You could see this coming a mile away.

    "Philosophy is useless; theology is worse"--Dire Straits

    by Bush Bites on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:46:26 PM PDT

  •  MSNBC had a story about how the RS reporter (12+ / 0-)

    held back even more inflammatory comments b/c they were off the record and how McC and staff new they were 'on the record' for the comments published.

    gotta see if I can find a  link.

    You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

    by byteb on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:46:56 PM PDT

  •  Why the WaPo is a joke (10+ / 0-)

    The official, one of many subject to a Pentagon advisory not to discuss the situation without authorization, spoke on condition of anonymity.

    Dear Anonymous Pentagon Clown with a pet WaPo stenographer,

    Fuck You.

    - HeavyJ

  •  The Post is jealous. (16+ / 0-)

    It's pathetic that we're relying on music magazines and comedy shows for our news and analysis.

    Lisa

    All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

    by Boston to Salem on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:47:09 PM PDT

  •  I think it's an important issue (0+ / 0-)

    from a journalist perspective although it's irrelevant for the political and military angle.

    But I for one would like to see RS answer these allegations and clarify if the statements reported were made on or off the record.

  •  Same utter B.S. other military and conservatives (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timaeus, vcmvo2, Matt Z, beltane
    are spewing (that it's the reporters' fault.)
      An ex-General (Keane) was on Charlie Rose Show last night blaming the R.S. (he didn't even get the name right, called it "Rolling Stone*s*") reporters for allegedly misquoting and taking statements out of context.
     

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:47:34 PM PDT

  •  Among other things WaPo and all the other (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, Matt Z, msmacgyver

    MSM's Papers are pissed cause people are buying Rolling Stone while their stuff is taken back and recycled into Kitty-Litter.

  •  The Washington Post can go (5+ / 0-)

    light itself on fire. It's reputation has already gone up in flames so what's the difference.

    You don't bring a knife to a gunfight and you don't bring a chicken to the doctor.

    by beltane on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:48:01 PM PDT

  •  This is the same paper that just fired (8+ / 0-)

    David Weigel, who wrote for them on conservative issues until they realized that he wasn't a conservative (he's a libertarian). He's also a regular commenter on Maddow.

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:48:11 PM PDT

  •  Just our 'bros' at the Wapo (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, Matt Z, theworksanddays

    saying 'hey, we're still cool' to all their establishment friends.

    Aperture Science. We do what we must, because we can.

    by lincoln deschain on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:48:38 PM PDT

  •  There was a diary up today for just a few minutes (11+ / 0-)

    from barrettbrown reproducing email correspondence he had had with the author Michael Hastings, predicting a "pushback" from McChyrstal's people through the WaPo and Barbara Starr of CNN.

    And here it is!

    That diary also said that other heads are rolling, as I had noted in some other comments this week.

    This is whiny ass crybaby territory. McChrystal and his staff knew what they were doing. They just drank too much.

  •  Is this the same paper (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timaeus, IM, Matt Z, beltane, theworksanddays

    that exposed Watergate? The passing years have not been kind to them.

    Harry Reid: Float like Barney Fife, sting like Aunt Bea.

    by MeMeMeMeMe on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:49:47 PM PDT

  •  McChrystal and Weigel are not comparable (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, vcmvo2, foufou

    McChrystal has different obligations to refrain from having any comments he or his staff made that might have been derogatory towards the civilian leadership of the military to become public than Weigel had.

    Now, I have no empathy for McChrystal in this case. But he and Weigel are not equivalent in their ethical responsibilities.

  •  They seem to have deteriorated (6+ / 0-)

    according to WaPo, Rolling Stone didn't give Stan the whole article for his review!

    Nixon didn't get to review WaPo stuff, either. Who is running that paper now? Monica Goodling?  

    •  And as I've seen discussed many times, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      good journalists NEVER let a principle subject review a complete advance copy.

      I myself have had some ferocious arguments, especially with one famous WaPo reporter, about this, because I think it's often more a sign of journalistic laziness than genuine principle, and it increases the amount of errors that are published because the reporters just don't really understand some technical area.

      Nonetheless, most journalists will fight to the death over the principle.

      •  I don't understand what you say (0+ / 0-)

        I was told that the complete article is reviewed by McChrystal's staff or himself, before it can be released. Is that a rule? If a reporter is not adhering to that rule by not submitting the whole article, is that soemwhat illegal or just unethical according to standards used in the print press?

        How would anybody then write soemthing that amounts to a whistleblower report?

        I don't understand who is lazy in doing what? The reporter for letting his articles be reviewed, because he is too lazy or not knowledgable enough to know if he got "everything right"? I am a bit confused.

        "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

        by mimi on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 05:00:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, the reporter Michael Hastings (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          was very clear that McChrystal and his staff did NOT get to review the entire article in advance.

          As I said in my note above, journalists typically NEVER permit that.

          McChyrystal's staff was given some part of the interview for "fact-checking," but it hasn't been made clear (so far as I've seen) exactly what that was.

          ************

          My point about this rule of journalism? Let me clarify.  I'm a top expert in one area of law.  I've been interviewed several times by reporters.  I always request that they let me see their version of what I said, not to avoid embarrassment, but because I've observed that they ALWAYS make technical mistakes. So this is mainly to protect the public and the reporter, not me.

          Nearly every time the reporter has refused to do that.

          They claim that it violates journalism ethics to do that. While I think there is a point to that in some situations (such as this McChyrstal situation, where the whole point of the piece is McChrystal's conduct and attitudes), I also cynically believe that it's often just human laziness?  Why?  Because it takes extra time to send copy to an interviewed person and then review the result.

          Is that clearer?

          •  I had a heated, extended argument about (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z

            this with one of the Washington Post's senior reporters (this person has been there more than 25 years and is regularly on page A1).  Neither one of us gave an inch.

            I still think I was right!

            •  Slight addition: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              If you go to the link in the main post to the WaPo, there's a link to a sidebar story that says that what happened in that Rolling Stone sent McC's staff 30 questions for fact-checking, not the entire interview.

              I can't link to that, because I can't get to it without going through some registration jazz. But it's supposed to be free to view.

          •  thank you, just to make sure I get this right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z

            So this is mainly to protect the public and the reporter, not me.

            Nearly every time the reporter has refused to do that.

            They claim that it violates journalism ethics to do that.

            The reporters claim it is journalistically unethical, if a person that was interviewed, reviews the article the reporter is about to write?
            Or the other way around, it would be unethical not to allow the person they have interviewed to review the article?

            Aside from the question of what is ethical or not, is there a "honor code of conduct" so to speak among reporters with regards to the "review" process?

            I mean I could see it being "unethical" both ways.
            If there is no review process whatsoever, a reporter could write a smear article that is abusive. If every article had to be reviewed by the person interviewed, the interviewee could actually write the article almost himself and the reporter's right to free speech would be severely undermined.

            So, I am still not clear what the correct ethical conduct is. And how tricky is that going to be if you interview several persons and quote each one and would review each interviewee for the parts only relating to his own quotes, but the different quotes of different persons reveal things that another interviewee wouldn't have wanted to be written. How is a reporter supposed to write an investigative piece, if he had to fact-check all parts and quotes of his article from all interviewees he used quotes from by all interviewees?

            "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

            by mimi on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 05:45:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've never really studied this from the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              perspective of scholarly articles on jouralistic ethics.

              It just always seemed common-sense to me that journalists would get more accurate stories if they permitted to fact witnesses to comment before publication.

              As I said before, I think there is a smidgeon of ethics in that, and also a lot of laziness. I should add: also a lot of arrogance.

              The typical journalist thinks that he or she can interview somebody for 30 minutes about a life-time of work in a field the journalist knows nothing about and write about it more accurately than the expert. That's bullshit.

              •  if the interviews are done for TV news coverage (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Matt Z, damfino

                the interviewing person has usually less than 4 hours time to get the interview booked and less than that to prepare their questions. It's not always arrogance, but pure pressure of an idiotic 24h/7d news cycle to immerse the viewers with 1.5 minutes news clips in a repetitive manner. Most of the reporters I saw doing the interviews for TV news pieces have forgotten the names of the persons they interviewed after two to four weeks dependent on how many stories they have to cover any day.

                I guess the print press can do and does much better.
                Thanks for clarifying your comments for me.

                "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

                by mimi on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:10:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Katherine Graham is rolling over in her grave, (4+ / 0-)

    at how far the mighty Post has fallen.

  •  The irony is that the reports I have read suggest (11+ / 0-)

    that the reason Obama felt he had to relieve McChrystal had nothing to do with what the General and his staff said about the Washington people, but rather the insult to a NATO ally.  Obama has worked hard to repair the damage done to the structure of our international alliances, and having McChrystal and his staff quoted as speaking so disrespectfully of France was the real issue.

    Don't tell the Republicans though, as they probably delight in the insult to the nation they love to hate.

  •  On the record - off the record (9+ / 0-)

    I honestly do not care -- any 4 star general with this kind of lack of common sense has no business being the "leader" of the very brave soldiers trying every day to doing their best -

    and putting their life on the line

    all the while this joker is bantering about -- remember loose lips -- should be possible for a 4 star general to remember that.

    "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

    by sara seattle on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 03:53:42 PM PDT

    •  It IS a Court-Martial Offense After All (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, Matt Z, ezdidit, Ultranaut

      I saw the code posted and heard it read on air. It doesn't mention "press" one way or the other.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:06:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You should care (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rube Goldberg

      Off-the-record sourcing is a valuable resource for journalists as a lead and a tip-off.

      If they stop respecting off-the-record those with the information, from politics to potential whistle-blowers, will stop providing the information.

      •  You are missing my point (0+ / 0-)

        This 4 star general should have had enough common sense NOT to blabber on like this - regardless if it was on-or-off the record.

        "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

        by sara seattle on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 05:15:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  stop being manipulated by the embarassed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        MSM. The shit was on the record. We have not heard about NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll yet that a majority of the American people would be uncomfortable with a candidate knowing that Palin endorsed said candidate. Yet we heard ad naseum Obama favorability is slipping. please how many times must you be fooled by our MSM. I get my news from KO, TRMS, Daily Show, HP, TPM, DKOS and now RS.

  •  Irrelavent to me. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, shpilk, vcmvo2, Matt Z

    He's not supposed to voice those things even off the record.

  •  Guy gets story. Brings down general. Bad. (8+ / 0-)

    Guy writes down whatever general says, misses story completely, gets access. Good.

    This goes journalism in Washington.

  •  Off the record? So? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, bagman, Matt Z, beltane

    The military brass has needed to be slapped down by a Democratic CIC for a very long, long time.  

    I'm no great fan of Obama, but I'll sing his praises over this.

    The military needs to be reminded who's really in charge.  

    Good job, Mr. President.  :)

  •  This is the pushback Hastings was warning about (10+ / 0-)

    today. He said there is a coordinated smear campaign to discredit him and the piece coming thru the Pentagon to its usual puppets, i.e. CNN, WaPo.

  •  Nixon's Watergate musings were off the record too (8+ / 0-)

    eh?

    •  Well He Made a Government Record of Them On (0+ / 0-)

      government equipment. Only the KRATS and Bork would let him off for that.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:09:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Different situation (0+ / 0-)

      Felt was an anonymous informant talking on the record - he knew they were going to publish his informations, that was the reason why he was giving them.

      Journalists publishing off-the-record material may become a serious problem because they're drying their own sources.

  •  Be that as it may ... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, zett, vcmvo2, Matt Z, miss SPED

    Talking like that IN FRONT OF A REPORTER is a PFC mistake.  A general making PFC mistakes shouldn't be leading a damn war.

    (And in my opinion, he shouldn't have had command of that war anyway after what happened with Pat Tillman.)

  •  WAPO at work... (0+ / 0-)

    Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne. - James Russell Lowell

    by Deep Harm on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:02:46 PM PDT

  •  That train arrived right on time (0+ / 0-)

    "I drank what?!" -Socrates

    by bagman on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:02:54 PM PDT

  •  If anyone knows the rules (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, IM
    on what may not be reported by the media, it's the Washington Post (and the Times).

    Bad media. Bad bad bad media. Arranging with the officials to get a story out, but then reporting.

    Claiming to be a hillbilly of late.

    by Garrett on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:02:58 PM PDT

  •  My email to Jeff Goldberg re: Weigel (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, IM, zett, Matt Z, ezdidit, foufou

    Jeff,

    I really had to laugh at your absurd contortions today.

    "The Washington Post, in its general desperation for page views, now hires people who came up in journalism without much adult supervision, and without the proper amount of toilet-training."

    This kind of toilet training?

    "Much of what [Goldberg] wrote in a mammoth March 2002 story was based on the testimony of Mohammed Mansour Shahab, a prisoner in a Kurdish-controlled town in northern Iraq. Jason Burke of the London Observer later demolished Goldberg's story when he spoke to the same prisoner and found that he couldn't even describe the city of Kandahar, where Shahab had claimed that he'd traveled on Al Qaeda-related business."

    Later, you graciously reconsidered your judgment on Weigel a bit, then explained yourself:

    "I despise violent keyboard-cowboyism."

    Yes, I can tell:

    "In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality."

    I invite you to take a closer look at yourself and your profession. Whatever that is.

  •  Hastings is a role model for journalists (0+ / 0-)

    everywhere, or at least he should be.

  •  My Favorite Piece of Irony from the WaPo piece .. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, Matt Z, miss SPED

    When they cited the last question from the 30 Question e-mail which an aide answered ...

    In the last question, the fact-checker asked "Did Gen. McChrystal vote for President Obama? (The reporter tells me that this info originates from McChrystal himself.)"

    Boothby replied in all capitals. "IMPORTANT -- PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS -- THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNRELATED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE." He went on to describe the "strict rules" under which military personnel keep their political views to themselves.

    So, reading that you might think Boothby was in relaxed correct capitalization mode in the rest of the piece.

    Conveniently WaPo links the entire Q-A 30 point piece.

    In which every answer from Boothby to Rolling Stone was in ... ALL CAPS!!!

    For example ...

    The reporter writes that during Gen. McChrystal's trip to Paris this past April, Gen. McChrystal was traveling with a staff of 10 people. Is that accurate?

    THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT FOR THAT TRIP IF YOU ARE INCLUDING THE COMMUNICATIONS (SIGNALS) GUYS

    It went on like that for all 30 questions.

    So, seriously, when someone emphasizes the use of EMPHASIS!!! which isn't actually emphatically different, what might that tell us about the

    The official, ... (who)
    spoke on condition of anonymity.

    Let alone (talking of how the mighty traditional journalists shall fall down in front of the military) the author of the piece.

  •  WaPo is saying that MILITARY OFFICIALS are saying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ezdidit, foufou

    that  Rolling Stone broke the rules.

    There is a HUGE difference.

  •  I was going to comment on how (0+ / 0-)

    cannibalistic MSM is compared to blog sites on the left, but I just realized it would just be a matter of time before I had THAT glass of gin thrown in my face.

    Suffice just a ha ha, and a chortle.

    Catholic Church: Example of Religion thats TOO BIG TO FAIL

    by Detroit Mark on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:11:55 PM PDT

  •  I'm surprised he didn't use the old,,, (0+ / 0-)

    "it was only the beer talkin'" excuse.

    "Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy" Hermann Goering (NRSC?)

    by irate on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:13:47 PM PDT

  •  OTOH you present no evidence... (0+ / 0-)

    that he was not a guilty 'victim' of a media screw job :)

    Even paranoid people have people out to get them.

  •  WaPo: Stenographer for the Villagers. (0+ / 0-)

    f**k 'em

    I'm a Democrat. That's why.

    by ezdidit on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:14:00 PM PDT

  •  I've got just what the Washington Post needs .. (0+ / 0-)

     title=

    James Carville emerges from the conflagration riding a burning alligator.

    by shpilk on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:14:28 PM PDT

  •  Post article is McC's Pengaton supporters push bak (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett
    This is Pentagon leaking stuff to media to try and rewrite history and polish McChrystal's reputation. And it's Washington Post serving as uncritical conduit for Pentagon PR.

    Notice the use of the word "BETRAYED" in the headline? It has such a nice ring to it applied to our "brave general".

    Don't remember Pentagon using the word "BETRAYED" when McChyrstal was reprimanded for covering up the Pat Tillman white wash which really did betray a US serviceman.

  •  Some of the comments in response are awsome. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, Matt Z, Ultranaut

    from WaPo blog response

    "The military saying McChrystal was betrayed by Rolling Stone is like Tiger Woods girlfriends saying Tiger cheated on them."

    LOL ..

    James Carville emerges from the conflagration riding a burning alligator.

    by shpilk on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:23:57 PM PDT

  •  They got Scooped and wont admit it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chillindame, Matt Z

    They and their White House fancy dinner buddies all got scooped and are not big enough to admit it.

    In the Watergate era, a couple of young guys did the same and it was called journalism.  And the NYT and LA Times and Time and Newsweek, etc., all sent out teams to try to move the story---and some to defend the Nixon crowd, but whining that "Woodstein" did not play by the rules was not a song heard from the choir like the response to the Rolling Stones scoop.

    And it is fun to see them say ---we knew it too !

    Pitiful but illuminating.

  •  Again, for the elite (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, damfino

    there are no material problems only PR problems.

    In this age of falseness, only howls of agony ring true.

    by Paul Goodman on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:27:34 PM PDT

  •  His comments about his dinner (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, zett, Matt Z

    with the French minister were the height of unprofessionalism. He thought it a waste of his time because all of that is "too Gucci" Yes, so much better to be blowing people and their stuff up to hell and beyond!

    And the staff person saying the meeting is "so gay!" Ugh! How old are they? They should all be fired.

    Despicable!

    Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. RFK

    by vcmvo2 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:27:48 PM PDT

  •  For what it's worth (0+ / 0-)

    one of our producers was wandering how it was possible to get the article released for publishing. It was explained to me that articles like that always get read against by editors of McChrystal's side before it can be published, if I understood it correctly. From that they concluded that their was internal tensions (on the military side) and some people among them had an interest in having it published as it was.

    If McChrystal was "betrayed" at all, then from inside the military and not from RS.

    But I don't know the procedures. It's just hear-say.
    Can someone of the professional writers for the print media here confirm it?

     

    "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

    by mimi on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:46:34 PM PDT

    •  A major media magaizien whose reputation was (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mimi, Matt Z, foufou

      built on 'investigative; some might say muck raking articles, exposing corruption, hypocrisy and fraud CANNOT betray a military General in charge of a major war sending not only American troops to their death, but NATO troops and Afghanistan civilians, who cannot keep his MOUTH zipped or is in control of his staff, is morally obligated to expose them.And of the troops are upset because they can't kill civilians indiscriminately, they too need some re-training. War is not only about killing, it is about seeking peace.

      That is totally ridiculous.

      The mass media, of which RS is part is in direct hostile antagonistic combat with the institutions of politics and the military.

      Rolling Stone and Micahel Hastings did his and their job. The Wapo is pointing that out. The military FUCKED UP BIG TIME and are now whining the rules of engagement were NO FAIR. Give me a fucking break people.

      Are DRONES playing FAIR? are Special OPS playing FAIR.

      •  don't get me wrong, (0+ / 0-)

        I do not say that anyone was betrayed here. I simply don't understand what the "code of conduct" with regards to "review" procedures in the printed press are and what about them is ethical or unethical.

        I didn't knew that articles HAD to be reviewed by the interviewee, but have heard it now from several reporters. I am just trying to understand what the standards in review procedures are.

        "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

        by mimi on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 05:52:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  there is NO standard code of conduct. There is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mimi, Matt Z

          is NO necessity or imperative to allow the investigatory object to read or accept the investigative article.

          It's ALL conventional wisdom covering your ass.

          IT IS NOT LAW. It is you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

          The MEDIA is NOT the military, it is NOT the Government, it is NOT the League of Women's Voters. It is a a rabid tooth and claw predator trying to take someone and something DOWN and EAT THEM FOR LUNCH and sell zillions of magazines. It's about MONEY!. Any bets about the sell out of RS when it hit the stands TODAY?

          Modern media and modern politics and modern militaray DO NOT play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

          It is MORTAL KOMMBAT!

  •  Anonymous Sources? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, Matt Z

    The Washington Post article relies on unnamed sources for the sniping at Rolling Stone.

    ... according to a senior military official ... spoke on condition of anonymity ...

    Whatever.

    Perhaps if Gen. McChrystal had asked the NYT's David Brooks to tag along, none of this would have ever seen the light of day. Or even the WaPo writer Karen DeYoung, who leads with anonymous sources over the word of on-the-record sources (including the Rolling Stone which has tape recordings of the interviews).

    In the business, when the tape recorder is turned on, that means it's on the record.

    I remember the day when other publications followed the Washington Post's lead on stories. Not it's the WaPo ... except this time they're defending the subject by attacking the messenger. SCOOP!

  •  What Really Gets Me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    If there was any concern that topics were off limits, that down time was just that, YOU MAKE THAT KNOWN BEFORE THE INTERVIEW STARTS.  It's the most basic rule of dealing with the press.  If they felt uncomfortable, just ask the reporter to leave - they wouldn't even blink an eye.

  •  Hmmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

    My Grandma used to say 'if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, then shut the F*** up' (well Nanny didn't really say the f-bomb, but she meant it).
    When you're in a position such as General McChrystal was, you don't, that's you DO NOT, say anything you don't want in print, especially when talking to a reporter.  Duh.
    (Maybe it was the Bud Light Lime talking, even so, all in all, we're better off without Gabby/Blabby McChrystal).

    I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

    by Lilyvt on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 07:21:25 PM PDT

  •  There is no "off the record." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    Years ago, a good ol' boy named Clayton Williams was running against Ann Richards for governor of Texas.

    "Claytie" asked a bunch of reporters to his ranch to see what a real "cowboy"  he was. Except it rained. So everyone ended up under shelter.

    At which point, Williams shared this bit of humor, assuming that it would be off the record:

    "Y'know, rain's kind of like rape. If you can't do anything about it, you may as well just lie back and enjoy it."

    I think he was quite shocked when this pearl of folksy wisdom became a hot topic in the local media.  

    (IMHO, he had also never quite got it into his pointy head that women now have the vote.)

    He lost. Idiot.

    Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

    by Sirenus on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 07:22:48 PM PDT

  •  In a word... (0+ / 0-)

    CYA.

    Actually, that's three words, if you think about it. Oh, well, you know what I mean.

    It sounds like either WaPo is jealous that they didn't break this story or that their contacts in the military are trying to keep their jobs.

  •  My media mentor taught that "off the record" (0+ / 0-)

    means "Lights Flashing! Print
    THIS bit"......Tell a journalist that the next point is off the record and you're guaranteed it will be considered as the heart of the story.

    On a more serious note, my media mentor pointed out that when you work well and play nice with the media it can be a big help. For example, if you have expertise in a field....speak to a media newbie anonymous on background. . . . Let media people contact you with general questions about stories.

    Mutual respect.

    The unwritten rule is that thee is no such thing as "off the record" exactly.........meaning, just because you tell a journalist your comment is "off the record" don't be surprised to see it in print.

    Good Reading About Journalism:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Media Reform Action Link http://stopbigmedia.com/

    by LNK on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:07:16 PM PDT

  •  The Point of the Article (0+ / 0-)
    The point of that Washington Post article was to reassure all of the WP's sources that the WP will continue to ignore their most newsworthy and representative information. It's all "on background", so the WP and its cronies all know what's going on "behind the scenes". While the public is kept ignorant with propaganda painting the authorities in the best possible light.

    That article is just a sop to the WP's advertisers: the powerful subjects of its stories with so much to hide.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:46:26 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site