CBS reporter Lara Logan took to CNN’s Reliable Sources this weekend to criticize Michael Hastings and the article he wrote for Rolling Stone that led to the departure of General Stanley McChrystal.
She doubted that Hastings had honored off the record commitments (“I just — I don’t believe it”); said it was an “egregious” offense for journalists to build trust with their sources, only to then report remarks that could cause the subject trouble; and that it was “insulting and arrogant” for Hastings to claim he wrote a story that beat reporters could not.
Along with all that, Logan offered this:
I mean, the question is, really, is what General McChrystal and his aides are doing so egregious, that they deserved to end a career like McChrystal’s? I mean, Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.
Logan’s question is the right one: Was what McChrystal and his aides did so bad as to compel the president to accept his resignation? But it’s not a question for Hastings—whether or not he’s ever enlisted.
It’s a question for the president, who, after learning of what McChrystal and his aides were “doing,” decided that his career had to end.
Wow. This woman is really what you call "in the tank," Isn't she? I don't have much of an opinion on whether Hastings' interviews were on or off the record, but this woman apparently has stopped being a reporter and has become a "true believer." That's what happened to Judy Miller, too. How does she ever have any credibility after this debacle? She has really crossed a line here, as a journalist.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 28 Jun 2010 at 10:28 PM
How can 60 Minutes, which does such good journalism, keep this woman after this? She's crossed the line and it sounds as though it's out of jealousy. I won't be watching her reports from here on out.
#2 Posted by Jane Adams, CJR on Thu 1 Jul 2010 at 07:56 PM
The sad thing is she had some of the best and most candid reporting from inside Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL4R-xnkYmk
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-17-2008/lara-logan
She's one of the best (and bravest)... what does that tell you about the rest?
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 2 Jul 2010 at 12:24 PM
What does this
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Torture_study_reveals_appalling_cowardice_of_Americas_newspaper.html
tell you about the rest?
"From the early 1930's until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27).
By contrast, from 2002-2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture...
As soon as Republicans started quibbling over the definition of torture, traditional media outlets felt compelled to treat the issue as a "controversial" matter, and in order to appear as though they weren't taking a side, media outlets treated the issue as unsettled, rather than confronting a blatant falsehood. To borrow John Holbo's formulation, the media, confronted with the group think of two sides of an argument, decided to eliminate the "think" part of the equation so they could be "fair" to both groups."
Bootlicking bad.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 3 Jul 2010 at 04:40 PM
The issue is not nearly as black and white as presented here and I think really strikes at the heart of what is wrong with journalism today.
Hastings and his editors knew perfectly well that their story would put Obama in a tough position and very possibly force his hand. They deliberately chose to go with it anyway.
Logan, unlike a certain WAPo blogger, was upfront in her opinions and made her statements publicly, for all to hear. She felt, like many of us do, that McChrystal served his country well and didn’t need to have his career end just to provide fodder for a snarky article. Apparently those of you who don’t like her opinions now feel you can safely block her out. Epistemic closure, anyone?
The press feels that their right to report anything and everything trumps all, damn the consequences. The idea of exercising restraint, even during a time when the country is at war, is seen as quaint or corrupt if it’s even considered in the first place.
Call me cynical but if a Republican was in the White House we’d be hearing endlessly about why the military disrespects the Office of the President. Was Obama too sensitive to criticism? Unable to rise above the insults? Was his leadership style such that it engendered disrespect? I don’t see anyone asking these questions.
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sun 4 Jul 2010 at 06:57 AM
That's because those comments and that lax environment violated the strict discipline military officers must adhere to in order to maintain a civilian submissive corps.
When Admiral Fallon made his feelings public during the Bush years he too was removed and I agreed with that, in spite of having nothing but disgust with the Bush Administration and, man identifying with how much people who could restrain the Bush administration needed to be retained.
Generals and leaders are free to criticize, though not in uniform, when they leave their positions, and during the Bush years many did. Privates are also free to criticize because they are not in leadership positions, but only in their role as citizens, not as uniformed soldiers.
It wasn't because Bush had a thin skin that he relieved good men of their command, he had a right and obligation to do so. They serve at the pleasure of the president.
And considering how McChrystal made a speech designed to embarrass the president in London in order to force Obama's hand:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6259582/White-House-angry-at-General-Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html
the guy put himself on real thin ice already. That and his involvement in the Pat Tillman scandal pushed me towards saying , "Good riddance, you crappy leader."
It's not like the theaters of war have been doing so great under their (Petraus and McChrystal's) leadership to begin with and it's not like they were new to the job and could not be held responsible for their crappy record.
Good riddance to them both, in time.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 4 Jul 2010 at 12:16 PM