The Closeup…
As the sunset approaches on General McChrystal’s career in the military there has been much talk about being on the record and off the record – as far as interviews go. Michael Hastings exposed the inappropriate remarks of General McChrystal’s regarding his ranking superiors in Rolling Stone. Hastings has gone on record calling the relationship between the President and McChrystal as ‘complicated’. In my opinion, Hastings is being kind.
Hastings candid and very infamous profile interview with certain scandal associated with it, takes a not so suprising turn. The resignation, the retirement of General McChrystal has caused Michael Hastings to defend himself. Hastings in my opinion doesn’t FULLY OWN his contribution of the said events – the consequences, aftermath of his interview.
“You’re talking to me? You’re calling me a snitch eh?”
MAKING THE ROUNDS*
The Colbert Report – “I didn’t fire McChrystal. The White House fired McChrystal. I believe they used this opportunity to get rid of someone they weren’t happy with.” -Hastings
The article written by journalist Hastings was titled, ‘The Runaway General’. According to Hastings he says, ” I knew I had some decent material to work with, but I’m surprised at the level of involvement.” ( The Obama Admin ) What was suppose to be a two day trip to spend time in Paris after gaining access for the interview with McChrystal, turned into a month long stay.
The question has arised about the ethics of Hastings. Was McChrystal and Co fully aware their candid and colorful remarks would be put forth for the world to see, for their superiors to see? At any time did McChrystal and Co say to Hastings clearly and irrevocablly this is ‘off’ record, this is ‘on’ record?
HASTINGS ( quote )
I didn’t have the Matt Drudge press hat on, but everything short of that it was pretty obvious I was a reporter writing a profile of the general for Rolling Stone. It was always very clear.
*Quoted responses comes from the source Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-author-discusses-general-mcchrystal-interview.html
IMO ( In my opinion )
To suggest on any level as a seasoned, professional journalist you aren’t aware of the magnitude of information, the power you have once given access to someone or something that’s gonna change the normal order of things is unbelievable. You absolutely need more people to believe you. For every person that believes you have no idea the kind of impact you would have on obtaining this kind of information from McChrystal and Company, there are three to that one who won’t believe you.
Right now I am being kind.
Over the years of my life, I’ve seen where journalist have uncovered stories that have rocked a small town, to a big city. Uncovered stories have made an impact on a statewide to worldwide level. These type of findings are brought to the public because that journalist owned the findings.
Am I saying their ethics were admirable? Not at all. I am not sure what was given permission to be on the record, or off the record. At the end of it all, the journalist makes the call to go forward with what they have. Hastings in my opinion is not a snitch. Considerable time was spent, and it was clear he was there to report. What is not admirable is Hastings inability to own his actions till the very end. I feel he knew full well like anyone would know the weight this interviewed carried.
You have a highly respected General, selected by the President Of The US and he reveals his innermost feelings to a journalist who is there to report not make friends. Someone’s lines were blurred and in my opinion it wasn’t Hastings. If it was Hastings, this moment in time would have never been greenlighted for review, fact checks, approval and print.
To suggest The Obama Administration needed to rid themselves of this General by any means necessary, this suggest in my opinion Hastings doesn’t feel his work worthy of the time, effort, skill to get up close and personal and more. Hastings sir, it looks as if you don’t fully own up. The profile piece turned into more than a profile. Good journalism at best.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Codes among journalist are ever present. Depending on who you are, the kind of relationship you have with a journalist, the one rule of thumb to remember – codes of conduct vary for the situation more times than staying the same for the person ( s ). In other words if you don’t want something repeated, no matter the longevity, speaketh not. Pretty sane and straight forward.
In my years as a journalist, I’ve respected my codes of what is on or off record. I love up close and personal moments. With these moments carry much responsibility. I feel the magnitude is greater to uncover something that should not be public consumption.
Knowing this happens more times than not, I let my integrity shine through. On the record, off the record is a part of the conversation before, during and after the call. To be very straight-forward, everyone is not going to be of this nature.
I feel going forward the military will be more cautious with the up close and personal interviews. I don’t feel they will drastically sever ties with the media but caution, yes. Over the years the media has been a point of reference for situations good and bad happening. Support for the troops, is the good intentions of many in the media family. General McChrystal and Company failed to use clear judgment when it came to respecting their codes of conduct and respecting the Office of The President.
If there is a problem on any level, it should be discussed with the powers that be, give reccomendations, and take the feedback in stride. When you want to make it personal about your boss, the superiors, that should be done amongst those you trust not with the media around. Common Sense 101 wasn’t present.
Hastings, the look right now is not cool. Own your actions because the Office Of The President has owned theirs by bringing in another General to lead in Afghanistan. This cover story given to Rolling Stone was an exclusive, EYES WIDE OPEN exclusive.
I often refer back to Kurt Loder on the media:
Loder’s philosophy on the people he reports on is that:
“You shouldn’t make friends. It’s not a good thing to be friends with people you’re covering. There’s just no point in doing it. It’s tempting, but they’re not going to consider you their friend anyway. They just know that you’re somebody that can do something for them. So you shouldn’t really flatter yourself that they want to be your buddy. They don’t… They want you for some reason or other, and you just have to fend that off all the time. And you can’t really cover people critically that you’re friends with. How would that work? That would be bad. So you always have to keep that in mind”.
Rather poetic with Loder once being at Rolling Stone.
Well said Kurt Loder and I will end on that note.
You’ve been deja vu’d,
BEBE
