What would you do if you had information that, if divulged, could potentially make you rich and advance your career tremendously. But the only catch is that your country is at war and publishing this information would also drastically damage your nation’s ability to prosecute the war and perhaps endanger the lives of your own soldiers?
If you’re a journalist for Rolling Stone magazine, not only do you publish it, but you do so in the most sensationalist manner possible, and follow-up the article by giving a series of interviews in which you bask in the glory of your exclusive “scoop”.
These were the actions of Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, who hit paydirt last week, when he published a profile on General Stanley McChrystal, who, at the time, was the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Rather than an insightful meditation on the life and thought processes of America’s top soldier in the war, the article was dominated by tabloid fodder, including several quotes in which McChrystal and his staff made disparaging remarks about members of the Obama administration including the president himself.
By his own admission, Hastings spent days building up a level of trust with the General, only to publish an article that would ultimately lead to McChrysta’s resignation (likely at the insistence of the president). I concede that McChrystal should have been much more careful and he should have known better than to trust a journalist to put the interests and well-being of his subject over the desire to get the juiciest story possible.
But what about the reporter’s ethical obligations? Though he denies deceiving McChrystal into thinking things were off the record when they weren’t, at least one prominent journalist has voiced doubts about whether the reporter was completely honest with the general about what would get published and what wouldn’t. I’ve since found out that much of the quotes published in the article were uttered over the course of a week-long period during which Hastings along with McChrystal and his staff were stranded in Europe due to last April’s volcano eruption in Iceland, and the constant presence of the reporter eventually caused McChrystal and his people to let their guard down.
In addition to the alleged deception, there is another transgression being perpetrated here, and in this case the guilt of the reporter is not in doubt. Beyond screwing over the general and his staff, Hastings has also managed to screw over the Obama administration, as well as the Afghan and American people all in one fell scoop. On its face, this statement may seem a little bit far-fetched, but consider this…
I am as critical of the war in Afghanistan as anybody I know, and I believe that the mission should be aborted before more American, Canadian, and Afghan lives are thrown away in this unwinnable war. But if more war is the path that the administration insists on taking then both critics and advocates of the war agree that the best person to oversee that effort was General McChrystal. However, because McChrystal’s remarks about the president, who happens to be the commander in chief, were made public, Obama was forced to fire the best man for the job or else risk having the public and military’s confidence in his authority drastically diminished. What makes these circumstances so unfortunate is that every quote attributed to McChrystal and his staff is something that you could easily picture anybody saying about his or her superiors off-the-record, and in fact, I’d be willing to bet that, behind closed doors, much worse has been said about this and every other administration trying to tackle the incredibly difficult task of carrying out a war. The only difference in this instance is that the comments were published.
Fortunately for the president, there happened to be an equally qualified general available to take over for McChrystal. Had someone like General Petraeus not been available, Obama might have had to keep McChrystal on and deal with the insubordination that would have resulted from McChrystal going unpunished. Surely Michael Hastings didn’t consider these contingencies when writing up his story.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is almost completely void of any criticism directed at the reporter for his role in creating this conundrum. Lara Logan, the one journalist who has dared to criticize Hastings, has since become the target of a media lynching at the hands of her fellow journalists.
In a quote that, to me, typifies the journalistic hubris that spawned this entire debacle, Hastings would later claim, without a hint of irony, that McChrystal’s decision to talk to him signified “poor judgment”. I couldn’t agree more. But what does that say about the reporter, and about the profession of reporting in general?
I agree with avp. I won't know what the ethics of journalism are until i finish my first semester at j-school this fall, but part of me feels the reporter did the right thing in publishing his remarks. these weren't state secrets he was betraying after all. and the general should've been more careful with what he said.
I don't agree with either of you guys actually... I think this incident will lead to less journalists being permitted access behind the scenes because nobody wants to be ambushed like this. Which is unfortunate since it means the public will suffer due to lack of transparency.
But it's that journalist's fault for abusing his privileged access and putting his fame ahead of his long-term integrity. I hope he never gets another interview again! It reminds me of Martin Bashir's clothes-lining of Michael Jackson... At least in that case it was only music, not an issue of national security.
And I bet the general was VERY careful with what he said, but he wasn't perfect. He was probably too busy thinking about Afghan insurgents to be 100% politically-minded
I agree with AVP and Aman. Nothing is trully off the record. That's basically how journalist's work. Some have a little bit more integrity, but most journalists would have no qualms about publicizing the identity of a witness to a murder even if it meant putting that witness's life in danger. Fame, career and profit always come before the well-being of the subjects. I've experienced this first-hand in my few run-ins with reporters. That's why most jurisdictions have laws prohibiting journalists from publishing the identities of underage suspects and sexual assault victims. Because if those laws weren't in place, you could never trust journalists to abide by basic human decency. It's not in their DNA.
I agree with AVP and Aman. Nothing is trully off the record. That's basically how journalist's work. Some have a little bit more integrity, but most journalists would have no qualms about publicizing the identity of a witness to a murder even if it meant putting that witness's life in danger. Fame, career and profit always come before the well-being of the subjects. I've experienced this first-hand in my few run-ins with reporters. That's why most jurisdictions have laws prohibiting journalists from publishing the identities of underage suspects and sexual assault victims. Because if those laws weren't in place, you could never trust journalists to abide by basic human decency. It's not in their DNA.
But there HAS to be an 'off the record' though... If everything I say is going to get published and I'm not there to safeguard the context in which it's presented, I'd rather say nothing at all. If everyone thinks like that, the flow of information is interrupted and everybody suffers for it. Journalists should definitely try to paint a picture of what's going on but I would never talk to someone like Martin Bashir after what happened. Reputation is everything, and it stems from trust between the interviewer and interviewee.
i don't see the reasoning of 'off the record'.
if you allow that, you're basically allowing the subject to dictate the terms of what gets out. sure you risk public officials being more closed off, but that just raises the bar of what journalists have to do to get good stories. let public officials be as closed off as they want, and let journalists do whatever they have to do to get the story.
the real reason the RS reporter was able to do what he did was because he wasn't with the NYTIMES/Washington Post/CNN or any other outlet that depends on the good graces of politicians/generals. he was able to burn bridges.
I think 'off the record' allows a person to be more free and say things that help the reporter understand the overall tone/mood without committing to anything specific. I wouldn't want any of my exact negative quotes about my boss coming out, but I would be ok with the reporter saying something like 'there are signs of a strained relationship between them etc"
That also allows me plausible deniability. I can always tell my boss later that I never said anything negative per se, and the reporter must have picked up on something...
And as for burning bridges, that reporter is fucked! I wouldn't let him anywhere near me
Actually, your comment reminded me of something a reporter once told me, AVP. He said that anything said in confidence can be challenged, so it's no good using it in a story. But anything said in a public forum, like a court room say, is fair game because it's on the public record. Given that, i'm surprised McChrystal didn't just deny what was said or say the reporter took him out of context or what.
a professor told me in second year university (and another prof in law school said the same a few years later) that there is no such thing as 'off the record'.