Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Waitone on July 07, 2010, 10:12:19 PM
-
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/army_rolling_stone_mchrystal_071210w/
Does this mean the media pack will ostracize the RS reporter? Naah, didn't think so either.
Sources: Rolling Stone quotes made by jr. staff
Mag also accused of misrepresenting communications with McChrystal’s HQ; e-mails support claim
By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jul 7, 2010 18:56:44 EDT
The impolitic comments that torpedoed Gen. Stan McChrystal’s career were “almost all” made by his most junior staff — men who “make tea, keep the principal on time and carry bags” — who had no reason to believe their words would end up in print, according to a staff member who was on the trip to Europe during which the comments were made.
Two other sources familiar with the trip, including Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, McChrystal’s personal spokesman, said the quotes that appeared in a Rolling Stone article that got McChrystal in trouble were made in “off-the-record” settings.
All three sources also accused Rolling Stone of publicly misrepresenting its communications with McChrystal’s headquarters after the story had been reported but before it went to print. E-mails obtained by Army Times appear to support the McChrystal side’s version of events.
Rolling Stone did not return a call seeking comment for this story.
President Obama relieved McChrystal of his command of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan on June 23 in response to the article, which quotes McChrystal and members of his staff making derogatory comments about a range of senior civilian officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, who is a retired lieutenant general, and National Security Advisor James Jones, who is a retired Marine general.
Only a few of the quotes were attributed to McChrystal himself: In the opening sentence of the eight-page article, he asks his staff how he got “screwed into” attending a dinner with a French government minister; he imagines responding to a hypothetical question from a French audience about the vice president by pretending not to know who Biden is; the general is described as checking his BlackBerry and groaning, “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke ... I don’t even want to open it.” In what appears to be the only contentious quote drawn from an on-the-record interview with McChrystal, he says he felt “betrayed” by U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.
The remaining quotes have a variety of anonymous attributions:
• Descriptions of Obama appearing “uncomfortable and intimidated” and “not very engaged” in two early meetings with McChrystal are attributed to “sources familiar with the meeting” and “an adviser to McChrystal” respectively.
• “One aide” is said to have called Jones a “clown ... stuck in 1985.”
• “A member of the general’s team” says his boss describes Holbrooke as “a wounded animal.”
• “An aide” makes a crude joke about the Holbrooke e-mail.
• A comment about the dinner with the French minister being “f------ gay” is also attributed to an anonymous “aide.”
• A quote that rhymes the vice president’s surname with the phrase “bite me” is attributed to “a top adviser.”
• A comment that visits by Sens. John Kerry and John McCain are typically “not very helpful” is attributed to “another aide.”
Many of the quotes are drawn from banter among staffers that the article’s author, freelance writer Michael Hastings, overheard shortly after he joined McChrystal’s team when the general was on a speaking trip to Paris.
But although Hastings describes the personnel on the Paris trip as “the most powerful force shaping U.S. policy in Afghanistan,” the people he quoted in the article were mostly junior personnel who have no significant role in advising McChrystal, a source who was on the Paris trip told Army Times. “Almost all the offending quotes ... were, in fact, from conversations with the most junior people on the trip,” the source said.
Taking issue with Hastings’ description of the power of McChrystal’s traveling party, the source noted that it included neither Mark Sedwill, NATO’s senior civilian representative in Afghanistan and a close McChrystal ally, nor any of the influential three-stars under McChrystal’s command, such as Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, who runs the war on a day-to-day basis as the head of ISAF Joint Command; Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, who is in charge of training the Afghan security forces; and Vice Adm. Robert Harward, who runs detainee operations in Afghanistan. “These are the powerful folks driving strategy,” said the source who was on the trip.
The flag officers who did make the trip, including Rear Adm. Greg Smith, ISAF’s deputy chief of staff for communication; Maj. Gen. Mike Flynn, ISAF’s intelligence chief; and Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, ISAF’s deputy chief of staff for operations, were responsible for none of the offending comments, the source said. “I know the person who said, ‘Bite me,’” the source said. “I wouldn’t call them a senior adviser.”
To quote young aides in a way that implies that they were officials with more significance is “unfair” of Hastings, the source said.
“Do these young men write policy? Do these young men have an official impact on the working relationships between institutions of government? They make tea, keep the principal on time and carry bags, and they are so in awe of this man [i.e. McChrystal] that they get to work with,” the source said.
As an example of Hastings breaking ground rules, the source who was on the Paris trip cited an invitation by Duncan Boothby, a civilian contractor who was special assistant to McChrystal, extended to Hastings to dine with McChrystal, his wife and the rest of the team in an Irish pub in Paris on the night of the McChrystals’ wedding anniversary.
The invitation was contingent on Hastings treating “everything” that night as “off the record,” to which Hastings agreed, the source said. However, the article includes a description of the staff getting “completely s----faced” at the pub.
But McChrystal was not blaming his men for his downfall. Nor has he denied that any of the remarks was made. “He’s a military commander and he will take responsibility for anything that his men do, and that’s ultimately what he’s done,” the source said. “But keep in mind McChrystal did not make the offending remarks quoted in the article.”
No matter who uttered the quotes, by using them, Hastings violated ground rules that public affairs personnel had established with him, said a senior military official familiar with the trip.
In an interview on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” show, Hastings said there were “no ground rules laid down,” which he said “means it’s on the record,” thus allowing him to quote what he heard freely. Eric Bates, executive editor of Rolling Stone, echoed this claim in a June 22 appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” saying all the quotes that got McChrystal in trouble were spoken when the speakers knew they were on the record.
Neither Bates nor Hastings explained in their interviews how this squared with the fact that one of the most damaging anonymous quotes in the article, in which Jones is referred to as a “clown” by “one aide,” is preceded by the following sentence: “In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk s--- about many of Obama’s top people on the diplomatic side.” The phrase “in private” usually implies an off-the-record conversation, meaning it cannot be repeated in an article.
McChrystal’s team saw things very differently from Hastings and Bates. “Many of the sessions were off the record and intended to give him a sense of how we operated as a team,” said a senior military official familiar with McChrystal’s Paris trip. “Hastings conducted several one-on-one interviews — some of those were on background and others were on the record. I have found no evidence to suggest that any of the salacious political quotes were from any of these one-on-one interviews. They all appear to have been in settings that were off the record.”
Hastings’ claim that there were “no ground rules” was “an absurd statement,” said the senior military official.
“Ground rules varied as appropriate, but significant portions of the time were considered to be off the record or on background,” said Sholtis, who did not make the trip to Paris but helped coordinate Hastings’ embed with the McChrystal team when it continued in Afghanistan. “Based on my experiences in the job, I’m confident that Gen. McChrystal and his staff believed they were off the record,” Sholtis said.
Two sources familiar with what happened on McChrystal’s fateful trip to Europe backed him up.
“I don’t think most of those folks when they had those conversations with Michael expected those words to show up in Rolling Stone,” said the source who was on the trip. “I don’t think the young men who were in conversations there thought that they were in an interview in that particular moment.”
McChrystal’s traveling party of about 10 included two public affairs officials: Smith, who is ISAF’s senior public affairs officer, and Boothby. It was Boothby who was in charge of the Rolling Stone project. Smith was aware of it, but left everything up to Boothby, who did not require Hastings to sign a document covering the ground rules of his embed, as virtually all journalists who embed with ISAF units in Afghanistan must. Boothby has resigned in the wake of the Rolling Stone article.
In Hastings’ case, all agreements were verbal. This arrangement was not unusual when reporters profiled McChrystal, said the source who was on the trip, but it appears to have left the rules open to differing interpretations, or at least to have left McChrystal’s people with no hard evidence that Hastings broke them.
Members of McChrystal’s inner circle are also furious at what they perceive as Rolling Stone’s false account of events leading up to the publication of Hastings’ article.
In his June 22 appearance on “Morning Joe,” when asked if McChrystal’s staff had known “this was coming for some time,” Bates, the Rolling Stone editor, answered, “Yes.”
“We ran everything by them in our fact-checking process, as we always do, so I think they had a sense of what was coming, but this was all on the record and they spent a lot of time with our reporter, so I think they knew that they had said it.”
These comments infuriated those at ISAF headquarters in Kabul. Army Times obtained a copy of the questions that Rolling Stone’s fact-checker sent to ISAF headquarters, along with Boothby’s replies. None of the questions discusses the controversial aspects of the article, nor are any of the quotes that cost McChrystal his job included.
“We first learned about sensitive content in the article when reporters called who had received advance copies four days prior to actual newsstand deliver,” Sholtis said. Two days later, McChrystal was gone, leaving the men quoted anonymously in the article to rue their actions.
“Those guys are mortified now, because they privately are aware probably of who said what and of the ultimate consequences of those words,” said the source who was on the trip. “A number of us ... feel that we have let perhaps the greatest military mind of his generation down in a deeply, deeply personal way and that we have somehow even jeopardized the greater mission.”
-
The remaining quotes have a variety of anonymous attributions:
Am I the only one laughing about an article complaining about anonymous attributions where the story comes from an anonymous source?
-
Am I the only one laughing about an article complaining about anonymous attributions where the story comes from an anonymous source?
This article was not intended to torpedo the top commander of a war zone. Bit of a difference.
Back when I was in, my view of reporters was simple. They were the enemy, that we were not allowed to shoot. If they could damage our operations or get us killed, they would. Barring that, they'd do any damage they were allowed. A good soldier tells them as much as he'd tell an enemy interrogator, which they are. Nothing useful and all the misdirection possible. I've rarely seen much evidence to the contrary.
-
I'm wondering if he honestly expected a reporter to respect "off the record" or if he knew all along what would happen.
-
Off the record assumes the reporter is an honest individual with moral character and professionalism.
Which, for many a modern reporter, is laughable at best.
If there is a reporter or microphone in earshot there is no such thing as off the record. There is only on the record and "maybe we won't use that if I get enough juicy stuff on the record."
-
Never tell a reporter anything you wouldn't tell an enemy intelligence agent....sometimes, there's no difference b/t the two....other times, you can trust the agent more.... :cool:
-
When I was a Platoon Leader, my fellow platoon leaders and I groused about (amongst ourselves and our peers from other companys/batteries/troops) about our CO, the Battalion Staff and pretty much everyone above our level that they "Just didn't get it, they're in the headshed just looking at numbers and reports, not down here in the mud and blood with us front line troopies."
When I was on Battalion Staff, my fellow staff officers and I groused about Brigade and Division, that they just didn't get it. "We're the ones down here in the trenches, and they're laying on these impossible taskings and requesting stupid reports and powerpoint presentations about worthless crap and the nothing we're getting done, because of them."
So when I read the RS report I could relate right away that these were the lower level guys biching about the guys at the next level.....
Hell, I'm pretty sure back in thatin 10,000BCE Oog told Mog that the Tog, the leader of their little tribe/band, didn't know dick about how to find food/shelter/mates........ ;/ ;)
-
the reporter is an honest individual with moral character and professionalism.
Is there such an animal?
-
Is there such an animal?
See the next line :D
-
Back when I was in, my view of reporters was simple. They were the enemy, that we were not allowed to shoot. If they could damage our operations or get us killed, they would. Barring that, they'd do any damage they were allowed. A good soldier tells them as much as he'd tell an enemy interrogator, which they are. Nothing useful and all the misdirection possible. I've rarely seen much evidence to the contrary.
^^^ Agreed.
-
I'm wondering if he honestly expected a reporter to respect "off the record" or if he knew all along what would happen.
I think he expected the reporter to honor "off the record." Most do. I have worked with a number over the years, one of whom later became a professor of journalism. There are two things that most reporters hold sacred: (1) Protect your sources; and (2) What is said off the record is off the record.
Officially, Hastings may not be banned by the U.S. military. Unofficially, his career as a reporter is effectively ended, because NOBODY will ever trust him again.
-
Back when I was in, my view of reporters was simple. They were the enemy, that we were not allowed to shoot. If they could damage our operations or get us killed, they would. Barring that, they'd do any damage they were allowed. A good soldier tells them as much as he'd tell an enemy interrogator, which they are. Nothing useful and all the misdirection possible. I've rarely seen much evidence to the contrary.
I suppose the difference is that reporters are more likely to take disinformation and run with it as long as it fits into their paradigm.
-
Officially, Hastings may not be banned by the U.S. military. Unofficially, his career as a reporter is effectively ended, because NOBODY will ever trust him again.
Yeah but he did get a book deal for his unethical behavior.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/michael-hastings-rolling_n_636435.html He made his bones so now he's an operator (outted) of the left. He will do nicely in terms of monetary reward.
-
Back when I was in, my view of reporters was simple. They were the enemy, that we were not allowed to shoot. If they could damage our operations or get us killed, they would. Barring that, they'd do any damage they were allowed. A good soldier tells them as much as he'd tell an enemy interrogator, which they are. Nothing useful and all the misdirection possible. I've rarely seen much evidence to the contrary.
I suppose the difference is that reporters are more likely to take disinformation and run with it as long as it fits into their paradigm.
Agreed. I remember hearing an audio recording of a panel discussion from around the time of the Vietnam War. Mike Wallace was in the panel. The question was posed (I'm paraphrasing) "You've been invited to follow an NVA patrol as long as you promise not to interfere with operations. The unit begins to set up an ambush and you see an American unit approaching the ambush site. Do you break your promise not to interfere, or do you warn the Americans?"
Wallace both said he would not warn the Americans because they are just there as observers to report a story.
For more on that astonishing lack of humanity, here's the full story.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/press/vanities/fallows.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/press/vanities/fallows.html)
-
Yeah but he did get a book deal for his unethical behavior.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/michael-hastings-rolling_n_636435.html He made his bones so now he's an operator (outted) of the left. He will do nicely in terms of monetary reward.
And that's what it's all about.....the book deal that leads to guest interviews on other shows and possibly an "expert" slot on the talk show of your choice....
Ahhh...journalistic objectivity.... ;/
-
My opinion? Every single member of the media gets put on first available transport back stateside. If they ask why, tell them that it's because Hastings made it clear that the media couldn't be trusted to honor their agreements.
-
Wasn't there a reporter who said McChrystal couldn't handle the media? Naw, that guy is probably just a bitter old washup...
-
Veering off-thread a bit, I recall a story about a press conference with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during which a reporter complained that the general was giving them misleading information about missions. The reporter supposedly said that in WWII the military was open with the press, and Schwarzkopf replied that things were different then, as the press was on their side.
Real story or internet fake?
-
Veering off-thread a bit, I recall a story about a press conference with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during which a reporter complained that the general was giving them misleading information about missions. The reporter supposedly said that in WWII the military was open with the press, and Schwarzkopf replied that things were different then, as the press was on their side.
Real story or internet fake?
[dan_rather]Fake but accurate.[/dan_rahter] Good enough for media work, so run that story!
-
My opinion? Every single member of the media gets put on first available transport back stateside. If they ask why, tell them that it's because Hastings made it clear that the media couldn't be trusted to honor their agreements.
^^^ Roger that. Only way to handle it. Make him a pariah (albeit an undeservedly wealthy pariah. I'm sure the leftists will gobble up the book as soon as it hits Barnes & Ignoble).
-
I suppose the difference is that reporters are more likely to take disinformation and run with it as long as it fits into their paradigm.
Agreed. I remember hearing an audio recording of a panel discussion from around the time of the Vietnam War. Mike Wallace was in the panel. The question was posed (I'm paraphrasing) "You've been invited to follow an NVA patrol as long as you promise not to interfere with operations. The unit begins to set up an ambush and you see an American unit approaching the ambush site. Do you break your promise not to interfere, or do you warn the Americans?"
Wallace both said he would not warn the Americans because they are just there as observers to report a story.
For more on that astonishing lack of humanity, here's the full story.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/press/vanities/fallows.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/press/vanities/fallows.html)
I'm confused -- this thread seems to be castigating Hastings for betraying journalistic ethics, then you bring this up and you seem to be criticizing Mike Wallace for saying he would uphold journalistic ethics. You can't have it both ways -- either journalists are impartial observers and reporters and should act that way, or they are partisan observers whose word cannot be accepted by either side.
Which way do you want it? Pick one.
-
I'm confused -- this thread seems to be castigating Hastings for betraying journalistic ethics, then you bring this up and you seem to be criticizing Mike Wallace for saying he would uphold journalistic ethics. You can't have it both ways -- either journalists are impartial observers and reporters and should act that way, or they are partisan observers whose word cannot be accepted by either side.
Which way do you want it? Pick one.
You're missing the point. "Journalistic ethics" is simply something they conjure up when it serves them. Members of the media generally cannot be trusted to do the right thing. If Hastings needed to ignore his commitment to keep things off the record in order to break a big story and get a book deal, he did it without batting an eye. And if Mike Wallace and company needed to let soldiers hypothetically die in order to break their story, they'll damn well do that too. It it's about "journalistic ethics". It's about trusting someone to do the right thing. Something which reporters as a rule cannot or will not do. They trot out the "ethics" line when it serves them, and toss it in the back seat when it doesn't.
-
You're missing the point. "Journalistic ethics" is simply something they conjure up when it serves them. Members of the media generally cannot be trusted to do the right thing. If Hastings needed to ignore his commitment to keep things off the record in order to break a big story and get a book deal, he did it without batting an eye. And if Mike Wallace and company needed to let soldiers hypothetically die in order to break their story, they'll damn well do that too. It it's about "journalistic ethics". It's about trusting someone to do the right thing. Something which reporters as a rule cannot or will not do. They trot out the "ethics" line when it serves them, and toss it in the back seat when it doesn't.
I think it is YOU who is missing the point. If there is such a thing as journalistic ethics, it would require (a) being an objective observer and reporter, and (b) abiding by any agreement(s) you made in order to be given access to a potential story.
So if a hypothetical (American) journalist were invited to tag along on a patrol with elements of an enemy armed force, under the agreement that he would not interfere in the operation, the "right" thing for him to do as a journalist would be to ... not interfere in the operation, but to record it and report it. That's what a journalist is supposed to do.
You are saying that the "right" thing would be to ignore his promise not to interfere, ignore his professional responsibility to be an objective observer, and to warn the American patrol because they are his countrymen. I'm sorry, but I don't think doing so IS the "right" thing to do. I think the right thing is to do the job you're there to do, and to abide by the promises you made. Dang, you KNOW the enemy is fighting your country. If you can't make and honor a promise not to interfere, KNOWING who the enemy is going to be shooting at, then the only honorable course is to not take the assignment in the first place.
-
I think it is YOU who is missing the point. If there is such a thing as journalistic ethics, it would require (a) being an objective observer and reporter, and (b) abiding by any agreement(s) you made in order to be given access to a potential story.
So if a hypothetical (American) journalist were invited to tag along on a patrol with elements of an enemy armed force, under the agreement that he would not interfere in the operation, the "right" thing for him to do as a journalist would be to ... not interfere in the operation, but to record it and report it. That's what a journalist is supposed to do.
You are saying that the "right" thing would be to ignore his promise not to interfere, ignore his professional responsibility to be an objective observer, and to warn the American patrol because they are his countrymen. I'm sorry, but I don't think doing so IS the "right" thing to do. I think the right thing is to do the job you're there to do, and to abide by the promises you made. Dang, you KNOW the enemy is fighting your country. If you can't make and honor a promise not to interfere, KNOWING who the enemy is going to be shooting at, then the only honorable course is to not take the assignment in the first place.
Your inhumanity and moral relativism is staggering.
-
Ragnar, did you see this part?
If you can't make and honor a promise not to interfere, KNOWING who the enemy is going to be shooting at, then the only honorable course is to not take the assignment in the first place.
I doubt Hawkmoon is OK with American journalists watching silently as American troops walk into an ambush. It looks like he's saying they shouldn't take assignments that would conflict with their duty as Americans, or humane persons, etc. Personally, I can hardly imagine going along with an NVA patrol, and I would expect them to kill me immediately, whenever I became a liability for them.
-
Except I didn't make up the scenario. That was a real question posed during a forum of media types back in the Vietnam era.
From the article:
These were two star TV journalists: Peter Jennings of World News Tonight and ABC, and Mike Wallace of 6o Minutes and CBS. Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading, the North Kosanese had agreed to let Jennings and his news crew into their country, to film behind the lines and even travel with military units. Would Jennings be willing to go? Of course, Jennings replied. Any reporter would-and in real wars reporters from his network often had. But while Jennings and his crew are traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by American and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly cross the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst, the northern soldiers set up a perfect ambush, which will let them gun down the Americans and Southerners, every one. What does Jennings do? Ogletree asks. Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to ambush the Americans? Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds after Ogletree asked this question. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans." Even if it means losing the story? Ogletree asked.
Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction." Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace saida moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? "No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"
Jennings and Wallace clearly stated a desire to go behind enemy lines to see the war from the other side. So your argument of "well then they should just not go in the first place" is entirely invalid. They DID want to go. And Wallace not only wanted to go, but still considered his status as a reporter as more important than anything else, including being an American.
And that is the point I am making. You are attributing some moral fiber to there people where there is none. Their commitment is and always has been to themselves, their own ratings, and their ability to break a story. You see a contradiction, but you incorrectly attribute it to me. There is indeed a contradiction, but it's the media suffering from it, not me. When you look at Hastings' willingness to disregard is off the record agreement and Wallace's commitment to volunteering to watch the enemy kill Americans, you see these as opposites, and one must "pick one" as you said it. But they're not opposites. They are symptoms of the same source: overwhelming selfishness. Both Hastings and Wallace in the hypothetical actually wanted the same thing: to break a good story. One had to ignore a commitment to do so, the other had to ignore his own citizenship. But both are and were willing to throw away whatever guise of morals they had in order to get to the bottom line. Getting their name on a sensational story.
-
Huh? You're reading a whole lot into what I said. I would have to agree that leftists tend to have a lack of civic virtue, hence their devotion to a reprehensible politics. And most journalists being leftists...
That being said, I still don't see how Hawkmoon is being inhuman or morally relativist. He's saying that journalists should have a moral code, and should stick to it in all situations. He's not saying that Mike Wallace was right.
-
He's saying that journalists should have a moral code
And talking about what should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. Journalists, as a rule, don't have a moral code beyond "look out for number one." We can talk all day about whether a person should agree to go on the patrol in the first place, or whether revealing off the record statements to get a story is something someone should do. But again, talking about what should or shouldn't be is not relevant.
Hawkmoon seems to be looking at the two situations as opposites. One reporter breaking his "journalistic ethics" to get a book deal, and the other upholding his journalistic ethics no matter what. Hence his statement to me "Which way do you want it? Pick one." But I'll say it again, Hawkmoon does not see that the two actions which seem totally opposed, are actual extremely similar. If you look at them under the lens of "is this reporter doing whatever he can to get his name in the papers" then you find yourself with a "Yes" on both counts, and the seemingly opposite nature of the two actions vanishes.
Which brings me to my initial statement. There is not "journalistic ethics". That is a concept that a reporter uses when it suits them in order to make actions that would otherwise be deplorable, seem ok. And when these ethics get in the way of the real bottom line (breaking a story first), they go out the window.
-
Ragnar, did you see this part?
I doubt Hawkmoon is OK with American journalists watching silently as American troops walk into an ambush. It looks like he's saying they shouldn't take assignments that would conflict with their duty as Americans, or humane persons, etc. Personally, I can hardly imagine going along with an NVA patrol, and I would expect them to kill me immediately, whenever I became a liability for them.
Thank you. At least one person can read. That is exactly the point.
-
And does the fact that they claimed they would enthusiastically volunteer for the patrol mean nothing to you?
I can read btw.
-
And talking about what should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. Journalists, as a rule, don't have a moral code beyond "look out for number one." We can talk all day about whether a person should agree to go on the patrol in the first place, or whether revealing off the record statements to get a story is something someone should do. But again, talking about what should or shouldn't be is not relevant.
Hawkmoon seems to be looking at the two situations as opposites. One reporter breaking his "journalistic ethics" to get a book deal, and the other upholding his journalistic ethics no matter what. Hence his statement to me "Which way do you want it? Pick one." But I'll say it again, Hawkmoon does not see that the two actions which seem totally opposed, are actual extremely similar. If you look at them under the lens of "is this reporter doing whatever he can to get his name in the papers" then you find yourself with a "Yes" on both counts, and the seemingly opposite nature of the two actions vanishes.
Which brings me to my initial statement. There is not "journalistic ethics". That is a concept that a reporter uses when it suits them in order to make actions that would otherwise be deplorable, seem ok. And when these ethics get in the way of the real bottom line (breaking a story first), they go out the window.
I am confused.
If a reporter is embedded with the U.S. military, your position is that they should violate their agreement not to report OTR/classified info if they have reason to believe American soldiers will die as a result of keeping OTR info to themselves?
If a reporter agrees to embed with enemy forces, and is willing to accept the risk of being killed, don't you think adhering to the terms (not revealing OTR info) is in everyone's best interest? What a reporter might be able to reveal to friendly forces after the experience is certainly more valuable than if enemy forces had no embedded reporters at all, which would obviously be the enemy's policy after the first instance of a reporter revealing OTR info... not to mention they would instantly kill all other embedded reporters if they hadn't already.
-
I would hope that an American would be an American, and place America first, no matter what their job might be. It's pretty simple. You're embedded with American soldiers? Don't betray Americans. You're embedded with enemy soldiers for whatever reason? Don't betray Americans.
-
Would it be so bad to let a reporter from a 'neutral' third country get the scoop?
Also, I think we can all acknowledge that a sizable, if not majority, of reporters would roll tape on that enemy ambush, not report the torture of US prisoners then walk right back into the American base and break the story on an enemy unlawful combatant being tortured to save those aforementioned prisoners with a heavy condescending tone towards the inhumanity of the US military. The story being uncovered when that enemy soldier was receiving the best medical care the unit had to offer after he gave the information. [barf]
-
No matter what side they're embedded with, reporters (should) operate on the premise that reporting what they can, typically after the fact, will improve citizens' understanding of the war on both sides, leading to better decisions by the electorate in the future deciding on candidates based on their stated foreign policy goals.*
Reporters violating off-the-record or classified-info agreements torpedo that entire concept by ensuring reporters are only given access to purely one-sided, on-the-record sales pitches. It doesn't matter which side reporters want to embed themselves with. If they violate their agreements then their access is revoked, which is worse (long-term) for everyone.
Furthermore, a reporter embedded with enemy forces has to expect frequent disinformation, both on- and off-the-record, but particularly off-the-record if the enemy is the least bit competent. If a reporter reports such stuff, the enemy wins twice, first by potentially getting U.S. forces to prepare for a non-existent attack, and second by revealing U.S. reporters as spies rather than merely unwitting dupes.
*Obviously, big media are not interested in long-term education of the electorate; they're interested in ratings first, and driving their backers' foreign policy agendas second. The net effect is the same, however, since without continuing access (which is contingent on abiding by agreements), the media loses ratings and the ability to twist "news" into supporting a predetermined foreign policy view. Then they have to find something other than the war to report on.
-
Also, I think we can all acknowledge that a sizable, if not majority, of reporters would roll tape on that enemy ambush, not report the torture of US prisoners then walk right back into the American base and break the story on an enemy unlawful combatant being tortured to save those aforementioned prisoners with a heavy condescending tone towards the inhumanity of the US military.
Don't presume to speak for me, Mate. You may choose to believe that "a sizable majority" of reporters would be so biased as to deliberately ignore torture perpetrated by the enemy while publicizing similar torture committed by us, but I don't believe that.
That does not totally invalidate your opening statement, though. I could acknowledge that ... but I don't.
In point of strict fact, most reporters are not immoral -- they are amoral. As my late friend, the editor who became a professor, put it: "Body count sells newspapers." If there's blood to be found, they'll report it regardless of whose blood it is and who caused it to be shed.
-
Don't presume to speak for me, Mate. You may choose to believe that "a sizable majority" of reporters would be so biased as to deliberately ignore torture perpetrated by the enemy while publicizing similar torture committed by us, but I don't believe that.(2)
That does not totally invalidate your opening statement, though. I could acknowledge that ... but I don't.
In point of strict fact, most reporters are not immoral -- they are amoral(1). As my late friend, the editor who became a professor, put it: "Body count sells newspapers." If there's blood to be found, they'll report it regardless of whose blood it is and who caused it to be shed.
(1) Ragnar ought to thank you for making his point for him.
(2) Well, it doesn't happen with reporters who love their country, are patriotic, etc.
We can see puh-lenty of examples of foreign reporters taking their country's part on any given issue. America is almost alone in that its contingent of MSM reporters, for the most part, don't like America much and are perfectly willing to kick it in the jimmy savages who still piss in the same stream they drink from get the benefit of the doubt and most the breaks.
Also, never forget the herd mentality most MSM exhibit. A fine example is the reporting Michael Yon is doing from Thailand. Oh, the Thai violence is interesting, but the examination of the reporters' actions, mindset, and herd (can I hear a "moo?") mentality is more interesting by far.
-
I live in NY, and have spent a sizable amount of my life in NYC. This may have skewed my exposure.
While I know good reporters exist, my own experience would put them at less than 1 in 100.
I've been to events hosted for legal discussion where in a sea of suits 8 folks in ripped jeans get out and shout death threats at federal judges. Ever news article reported it as widespread disagreement and outrage throughout the crowd. Heck, in a High School science event, the reporter who showed up honestly inquired if the baseball sized model of a type of pollen was actual size and got huffy and disappointed when she was told it was not. I think I could go on for a goodly time, but its already making me depressed and disheartened. I can say feeling quite certain that I've never seen an idealist in any of journalism courses at the colleges I've gone to. I think they get mocked into other careers quite early on, leaving herds of amoral folk drunk on their own power. I think we have all seen those clips of news reporters at tragedies absolutely thrilled to have a chance at the spotlight. [barf]