Saturday, June 26, 2010
'Ground rules'
Backers of Gen. McChrystal have launched a counter-offensive, saying Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings and his editors violated interview ground rules. Not much sympathy for McChrystal et gang from this tiny corner of the blogosphere. The fact remains that McChrystal 1.) Agreed to the interview. 2.) Doesn't really dispute quotes attributed to him or his staff. 3.) Exhibited poor judgment, whether portions of the interviews were on or off the record. ...
The pre-publication fact-checking email exchange between RS editors and McChrystal's staff is interesting but not a smoking gun that proves much either way. It still comes down to whether McCrystal et gang said what they said -- and they're not denying what was said. They're arguing they were ambushed. But they weren't ambushed. See points 1.), 2.) and 3.) above. ... My theory is that McChrystal's staff agreed to the Rolling Stone interviews precisely because it was Rolling Stone, i.e. it was an attempt to make the boss look hip. It backfired. If there was an ambush, they helped set it up and walked right into it. ...
Hastings sounds like a great reporter, despite the silly defense of him as a "perfect specimen of the new breed of journalist-commentator that will hopefully come to replace the old breed'' in the media. Every generation tends to produce its own "new breed" of "journalist-commentators." Some of them turn out to be great -- such as Edward R. Murrow, Hunter S. Thompson and Tom Wolfe. Some of them turn out to be first-class hacks -- such as John Reed and Walter Duranty. There's no lock on "truth" or a "right way" to approach an issue. Whether a MSMer or new-breed journalist, a good journalist is still a good journalist, a hack is still a hack. ...
... I kind of liked this David Brooks column. He makes some good points. I guess that makes me an old-breed hack by certain definitions. So be it. ...
Backers of Gen. McChrystal have launched a counter-offensive, saying Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings and his editors violated interview ground rules. Not much sympathy for McChrystal et gang from this tiny corner of the blogosphere. The fact remains that McChrystal 1.) Agreed to the interview. 2.) Doesn't really dispute quotes attributed to him or his staff. 3.) Exhibited poor judgment, whether portions of the interviews were on or off the record. ...
The pre-publication fact-checking email exchange between RS editors and McChrystal's staff is interesting but not a smoking gun that proves much either way. It still comes down to whether McCrystal et gang said what they said -- and they're not denying what was said. They're arguing they were ambushed. But they weren't ambushed. See points 1.), 2.) and 3.) above. ... My theory is that McChrystal's staff agreed to the Rolling Stone interviews precisely because it was Rolling Stone, i.e. it was an attempt to make the boss look hip. It backfired. If there was an ambush, they helped set it up and walked right into it. ...
Hastings sounds like a great reporter, despite the silly defense of him as a "perfect specimen of the new breed of journalist-commentator that will hopefully come to replace the old breed'' in the media. Every generation tends to produce its own "new breed" of "journalist-commentators." Some of them turn out to be great -- such as Edward R. Murrow, Hunter S. Thompson and Tom Wolfe. Some of them turn out to be first-class hacks -- such as John Reed and Walter Duranty. There's no lock on "truth" or a "right way" to approach an issue. Whether a MSMer or new-breed journalist, a good journalist is still a good journalist, a hack is still a hack. ...
... I kind of liked this David Brooks column. He makes some good points. I guess that makes me an old-breed hack by certain definitions. So be it. ...
