The reaction to Rolling Stone’s profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been fast and furious. But while we wonder what’s going to happen with McChrystal, we shouldn’t lose sight of the excellent reporting in the Rolling Stone piece.
Author Michael Hastings mentions in the story that he spent a month around the general. He collected a lot of string over that time, and used it to great effect. Yes, it’s good to know that McChrystal likes Bud Light Lime and Talladega Nights, and fascinating to witness much of McChrystal’s inner circle get drunk at a Paris bar. And the rude gestures and Biden comments are getting plenty of notice.
But I’m talking about passages like this one, about the way McChrystal drives himself and his staff:
He also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It’s a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war.
There’s also a very powerful exchange between the general and some disgruntled soldiers, fighting the fight, and trying to adhere to McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy:
As the discussion ends, McChrystal seems to sense that he hasn’t succeeded at easing the men’s anger. He makes one last-ditch effort to reach them, acknowledging the death of Cpl. Ingram. “There’s no way I can make that easier,” he tells them. “No way I can pretend it won’t hurt. No way I can tell you not to feel that… .I will tell you, you’re doing a great job. Don’t let the frustration get to you.” The session ends with no clapping, and no real resolution. McChrystal may have sold President Obama on counterinsurgency, but many of his own men aren’t buying it.
That’s some nice reporting, and it takes time to do it.
NBC talked with Hastings, who is right now embedded with the U.S. military. And he sure wasn’t counting on all the time he got with McChrystal and his inner circle:
Hastings says he stumbled onto unprecedented access with McChrystal. After McChrystal’s press advisers accepted a request for the profile, Hastings joined McChrystal and his team in Paris. It was supposed to be a two-day visit, followed up with more time in Afghanistan.
The volcano in Iceland, however, changed those plans. As the ash disrupted air travel, Hastings ended up being “stuck” with McChrystal and his team for 10 days in Paris and Berlin. McChrystal had to get to Berlin by bus. Hastings says McChrystal and his aides were drinking on the road trip “the whole way.”
“They let loose,” he said. “I don’t blame them; they have a hard job.”
Hastings then traveled with McChrystal in Afghanistan for more time. What was supposed to be a two-day visit, turned into a month, in part due to disruptions of the volcano.
Being “stuck” with McChrystal turned out pretty well for Hastings and his readers.
Hastings also said that, though he spent a lot of time with the general, McChrystal knew their conversations were part of his reporting for the Rolling Stone story. “Most of the time I had a tape recorder in his face or a notebook in my hand,” he told NBC. And he pointed out that most of comments in the piece that are causing a stir came in their first day or so together—not after a month of charming, or lulling, the general.
McChrystal’s team hasn’t challenged the accuracy of the story. But that doesn’t mean they like the result. As our Liz Cox Barrett pointed out, Duncan Boothby, the civilian press aide heavily involved in arranging things for Hastings, resigned promptly Tuesday morning.
It’s interesting that, as The Washington Post reported, Boothby was “one of a growing number of civilians hired as press aides for senior military brass as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to generate considerable public interest and controversy.”
Professional media handlers can sometimes do good work, I guess. But they’ve got their limitations. And, as Hastings sharply describes McChrystal, he may be more than any press handler can handle:
In the late 1990s, McChrystal shrewdly improved his inside game, spending a year at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and then at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he co-authored a treatise on the merits and drawbacks of humanitarian interventionism. But as he moved up through the ranks, McChrystal relied on the skills he had learned as a troublemaking kid at West Point: knowing precisely how far he could go in a rigid military hierarchy without getting tossed out. Being a highly intelligent badass, he discovered, could take you far – especially in the political chaos that followed September 11th. “He was very focused,” says Annie. “Even as a young officer he seemed to know what he wanted to do. I don’t think his personality has changed in all these years.”

The public needs to be reminded that McChrystal was also one of the central figures in the Pat Tillman coverup and that he was responsible for irresponsible leaks in London back in late 2009.
he military has no business politicking for their desired strategy. They are not in their position to undermine the civilian leadership.
When Admiral William Fallon did similar things to Bush, he was fired.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3534102.ece
McChrstall and his boss are generals who love to play in front of the press and public in inappropriate ways. In a civilian run democracy, this conduct is unsupportable.
Superhuman or not, he needs to go if he and his staff continue to make their case in public, by denigrating their leaders, whenever they can't make their case to the president.
Especially when history shows (in the Tillman case) their honesty with the public is suspect.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 22 Jun 2010 at 07:01 PM
I think he is a hero- for speaking his mind and sharing his frustrations he should be applauded- this is America- this is free speach. He should't back down one ince to a bunch of cowards, community activists and others who don't care about winning the war on terrorism or at least fully committing to its cause.
#2 Posted by rick bothmer, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 10:36 AM
If you're so gung ho on "the war on terror" I guess you won't mind Obama collecting the taxes to fight it properly.
McChrystal lied about a hero (Pat Tillman). He's lead heros into a no win conflict. McChrystal and Petraus are garbage politicals in uniform.
In the words of ex-Admiral Fallon, Petraus was "an ass-kissing little chickensh*t" under Bush and is a vain little chicken sh*t under Obama, inhaleing the fumes of his own media hype and positioning himself for the republican nomination.
Heros. What would you know of them.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 11:07 AM
In the words of ex-Admiral Fallon
I think you meant to say in the words of Khmer Rouge loving, North Vietnamese worshiping, left wing, “no one gives a fuck about”, journalist Gareth Porter.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 04:24 PM
Sorry to complain from the other side of the pond, but one rather glaring example of BAD reporting is the way the article argues early on that the US has no military allies in Afghanistan... but signally fails to mention the British troops that are dying there every day. Shades of Hollywood films that imply the US liberated Europe singlehanded?
#5 Posted by Susan Greenberg, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 01:06 PM
I was a reporter who spent several years covering the military and have been a journalist for more than 20 years and after carefully reading the Rolling Stone article believe it to be a disservice to journalism and to its readers, McChrystal and one's political beliefs entirely aside.
Seeing that the Washington Post and CNN are only now reporting that the ground rules may have been broken, this is a bad moment for journalism, not a victory. Whatever good reportage was indeed in the piece, it is marred by putting color outside of context and leaving damage far beyond its actual importance. The pity is that it was a rather sound analysis of the failure of the Afghan strategy overwhelmed by its reach for some color.
First, the article is actually a sound and well-reported analysis of the failure of the Afghanistan strategy; fair enough. But it leads with a drunken night in Paris and anonymous quotes from the staff, not from McChrystal, who is quoted only as bemoaning another e-mail from Richard Holbrooke. The top of the article is a classic bait-and-switch, suggesting there is more about a baudy band of boys... except that there isn't.
Further, since when does the opinion of staff officers on background rate as news? The fact is that it doesn't. Staff officers are just that: staff. And if they're not willing to put their names by their quotes it's just color somewhere to spice up a serious piece or notebook fodder. Any serious journalist who has covered major issues and figures -- and his editor -- would not have bothered with this nonsense or at least put it in the piece as color further in instead of obscuring the main point of the reporter: the strategy is failing.
I can't think of an instance in which late-night drinking with staff, military, political campaign or otherwise, has ever resulted in more than ideas as opposed to news. Unless, frankly, you're a rank amateur reporter or editor. Barring witnessing a public figure violating his roles and trust directly, this was the cheapest form of reporting. So cheap not to merit the badge of journalism.
Either the reporter violated the trust of his sources, or the ground rules, as CNN and the Washington Post are now reporting. Or, more likely in my opinion, his editor did so in an effort to sex up an otherwise sound but rather dull piece of battlefield analysis. Whatever you think of the Afghan strategy, the president, etc., this was the poorest form of out-of-context journalism which took a serious public and political toll -- vastly out of proportion to its actual service to its readers.
After reading the piece, I can't take Rolling Stone seriously on serious subjects. (Not that I did.) And I'm rather aghast at my colleagues in the press rather timidly not mentioning what a slipshod, amateur imitation of journalism this turned out to be, albeit with major consequences. Instead, it was immediately compressed into the usual Washington public relations meta-melodrama where a head would roll or the president would look weak. The episode is a pitiful moment in the profession.
#6 Posted by Richard Parker, CJR on Sat 26 Jun 2010 at 10:31 AM
Bravo, Richard!
#7 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sun 27 Jun 2010 at 12:39 AM
I see a lot of people in the media and elsewhere ripping Michael Hastings for using non record causal banter to color his story in a way that damages the source.
We've seen this controversy before:
http://www.cjr.org/news_meeting/burned_book.php
Are there any similarities?
And is there a danger to truth telling when a journalist excessively uses his discretion to protect his sources from their own words and actions?
We saw Dick Cheney use his own words as an anonymous source from one media outlet (the NYtimes) to make the case that "the Times reports blah blah Iraq blah blah" to another (Meet the press).
To me, it's not a black and white issue. What do you think?
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 27 Jun 2010 at 12:12 PM
Another interesting parallel involving leaked information from private conversations which then got published and trashed conservative blogger Dave Weigel, costing him his position at the post.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/on_journolist_and_dave_weigel.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/the_pitfalls_of_leaks.html
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 27 Jun 2010 at 01:04 PM
Thimbles, there certainly are strong parallels between McChrystal and Weigel. I think it's very unfortunate that Weigel lost his job, but in the grand scheme of things it's barely a blip on the screen (not to him, though...).
The difference to me is that McChrystal's loss has real-world consequences; the US' strategy in Afghanistan may change, people might die in the changeover (on both sides), and much more. And for what? So Rolling Stone can sell more copies of a catty tell-all story? It just seems a monumental waste.
You can also bet that every military commander is telling his staff to limit or eliminate exposure to the press. I'd also guess that every corporate communications department at big conglomerates are taking similar actions.
How many many good stories will never be written because of the actions of people like Hastings and his editors?
#10 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sun 27 Jun 2010 at 11:44 PM