So Some McChrystal Comments Were Made off the Record ?

[Waitone]

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.”

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

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?

[RevDisk]

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.

[RaspberrySurprise]

I'm wondering if he honestly expected a reporter to respect "off the record" or if he knew all along what would happen.

[lupinus]

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."

[seeker_two]

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.... 

[Scout26]

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........  

[RoadKingLarry]

the reporter is an honest individual with moral character and professionalism.

Is there such an animal?

[lupinus]

Is there such an animal?

See the next line :D

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[tyme]

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.

[Waitone]

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.

[taurusowner]

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

[seeker_two]

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.... 

[AmbulanceDriver]

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.

[Balog]

Wasn't there a reporter who said McChrystal couldn't handle the media? Naw, that guy is probably just a bitter old washup...

[Monkeyleg]

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?

[roo_ster]

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!

[Hawkmoon]

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).

[Hawkmoon]

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

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.

[taurusowner]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[taurusowner]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.