"There's a Rolling Stone article out," an aide told then-General Stanley McChrystal early last week. "It's very, very bad."
The aide was half right. Michael Hastings's Rolling Stone article, "The Runaway General," was out, but it was not bad in any way, except for McChrystal's now-ended military career. It was simply superlative in pretty much every other imaginable respect: an almost picture-perfect example of skillful interviewing, smooth narrative writing, extremely exhaustive research, and finally (and perhaps rarest) thoughtful contextualizing of extremely complicated material. I recommend it to all journalism professors as an example of the state of the journalistic art.
But almost as impressive as the article itself--and, of course, the commotion it caused in the administration's Afghan policy resulting in McChrystal's firing and his replacement by Gen. David Petraeus--has been the Washington journalistic establishment's reaction to it. Reporter after reporter has complained that by accurately reporting what McChyrstal and his aides said in explicitly on-the-record conversations to a reporter with a tape recorder and/or notepad in his hand, Hastings has violated the tenets of professional journalism. (A few of the reporters did this, it should be added, after stealing his work for their own websites.)
To continue reading, please go to Americanprogress.org
Follow Eric Alterman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Eric_Alterman
are. This act of exhibition is overdue in any case. People got so used to lousy and useless
media that it takes a lot of efforts on the part of the media to wean their consumers off.
To read the entire Alterman article, go here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/070110.html
In-depth call-it-as-I-see-it journalism is not all that welcome in most news organizations. They might get sued! They might offend someone! Their tried and true and truth-shading sources might object!
Actual news might change the status quo, of which establishment news is one of the beneficiaries. The current notion is to look as if you are reporting (reporters in the field, reporter in the White House), without actually publishing anything revealing.
Remember Dan Rather? When he tried investigating and reporting, he was booted. So he went and so it goes.
You can bet your bippy that Murrow would be a blogger. Too dangerous to hire! It's that reporting thing, you know?
you can do an unpaid internship only if your family has money
we may become an aristocratic country where the winners write the story...unless maybe we learn to ignore the elite papers
so called journalists are jealous when they see the real thing, Rolling Stone
Supreme change of the mainstream media? ah, c'mon.
It's been like what...4 months since the whole story unfolded and what's the situation. Media is still cheating and decepting people. Seems that author of this article (http://bit.ly/aZ1fXL) was right — Petraeus-McChrystal story was about trading bad for worse.
without permission.
Lara Logan and her ilk want to preserve their power,
especially the power to contact those in the establishment
who are needed for access and information -- the "get"
as they say.
Thus, Logan and her ilk pander and protect their "gets."
This is, of course, reprehensible from our point of view.
From their point of view, it is their very livelihood we are
talking about. A very good livelihood, worth six or seven
figures, not to mention fame and personal power.
Which simply illustrates the real state of journalism.
This is why we will never hear the Sunday moderators
or even the good folks on PBS Newshour say:
"Senator Smith is with us on today's program. He is an
advocate for the oil industry's right to pollute at will,
and has received more than a half-million dollars from
the oil lobby. Welcome, Senator Smith."
And that, my friends, is why we should not trust the
mainstream media.
Ever.
With the notable exception of Maddow, Olberman,
Stewart and Colbert, who do not rely on "gets" and
therefore are able to tell the unvarnished truth without
fear that their careers will be jeopardized.
Americanprogress.org.
The correct link is:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/070110.html
incredible
Military commanders have a duty to their mission and troops. When the mission, goals change due to political whim, ideology, and the wars are predicated on lies, rosy predictions, mismanaged, with corrupt-greedy contractors thrown in the mix, it's no wonder more commanders and troops haven't voiced similar sentiments. They're risking their lives for profit, political expediency, and dubious objectives (that change frequently).
Had more commanders and journalists voiced objections, criticisms, raised doubts about our stated goals in waging the two wars, perhaps there'd be more accountability on the part of those who made the decisions, profitted by, yet made no sacrifices for their (imperialist-hubris) objectives.
journalism is about collecting facts
sources rarely give good info