Freedom of the Press

This past Wednesday (23 Jun), President Obama accepted the resignation of General McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan. The President had recalled the General from the Middle East to discuss comments which appeared in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine. On one of the talking-head programs (I'm stealing this from the President because I like the phrase), the conversation turned to whether the military will allow the press to be involved with the military anymore on missions.

This would be an affront to the principles of the Constitution. Granted, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making a law which would abridge the freedom of the press; it does not prohibit the military from disallowing the press from accompanying military units on missions or other events. The principle remains the same. Forbidding the press to accompany the military out of fear of what the press will report is along the same line as passing a law to limit what the press will report. This is a freedom and a principle we must never infringe upon – no matter what the situation.

Barbara Starr (2010, P5), the CNN Pentagon correspondent, reported on Saturday that one of General McChrystal's aides said most of what was reported in the article was said "off the record" while Hastings was tagging along with the general. Stealing from the Ally bank commercial, "What does that even mean?" How often have we heard the off-the-record comment from people who said things they didn't want others to hear? My answer: don't say anything you wouldn't want others to hear! Why say one thing for the record, if you will counter it off the record? Why be nice on the record, if you're going to be mean off the record? Ridiculous!

Michael Hastings, the article's author, was on Larry King Live this past week (see the transcript ). He was originally granted two interviews with the general for the purpose of the article; however, after the volcano eruption in Iceland impacted flights, he was able to spend a month with the general and his aides. The aides held their everyday conversations with Mr. Hastings present. I'm sure they (Mr. Hastings and the aides) were all chummy after the month-long hang-out session. The aides might have believed things were said "off the record"; however, if they had performed their background checks they might have realized otherwise, or at least had some sensibilities about talking in front of a reporter.

Mr. Hastings has spent the last several years in the region. He used to report for Newsweek magazine on the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. He even wrote a book, "I Lost My Love in Baghdad" chronicling his life in the war-torn capital, including the death of his girlfriend (ASME). This journalist will write about everything he sees and hears - as he should as a journalist.

As far as the article is concerned, I did not read anything which would've led me to fire McChrystal. Hastings paints McChrystal as a rogue, much like Maverick in “Top Gun” – competent and extremely good at what he does, except he pushes the envelope of what he can get away with. The general is at odds not necessarily with the President; he's at odds with the Obama administration in Afghanistan. Hastings reports "Team McChrystal likes to talk s*&! about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side." (Hastings, pg 94). It seems McChrystal is not only running the military side of the house in Afghanistan, he is also the main man on the diplomatic side. (Hastings believes this is because the DOD's budget is over 10 times the budget of the State Department. This is where Hastings's logic runs thin, very thin. He equates a mis-match in budget to a weak State Department vice investigating that maybe, the diplomats are weak and incompetent, which is why the State Department is weak in Afghanistan.) I have a feeling the general was attempting to run the diplomatic aspect of the mission because he viewed the diplomats as not doing their job, or at the minimum, unable to perform their job.

Hastings also shows how much McChrystal believes in what he is doing and how much he also believes in his men. Hastings tells the story of a soldier who sent the general an email discussing dissent in the ranks. The general then showed up at the platoon's outpost and spent time on foot-patrol with the soldiers (Hastings, pg97). This is a leader going on a mission in a dangerous area with his men. Those who've served in the military will understand the affect this has on morale! Hastings also reports the general has spent little time with his own family over the last five years. The article is not as damning as some of the talking-heads have made it out to be. I believe, as others have, General McChrystal took the sword for his people. His soldiers made the comments on his watch so the honorable action would be to go down for them. I believe it says a lot about the general.

With that said, there were two items pointed out in the article which make me question General McChrystal's appointment. The general was one of those involved in the Pat Tillman cover-up and he was also involved with one of the prisons which had prisoner abuses. These two items make me doubt the initial appointment decision. What was said by his aides do not.

I believe Michael Hastings wrote a fair article which paints an accurate picture of the general and his posse. I hope Mr. Hastings's article does not change the DOD's journalist policy. It would be shameful that a military of a free people would exclude the press from access to military personnel because of what might be told to the very people the military are entrusted to defend.

Freedom of the press is essential to a free nation. If you don't want the press to report your words, don't say them.

Mike

Note: Rolling Stone is a very liberal magazine. This article, though written in the typical style of RS (profanity laced with innuendos), is not what I would term a typically slanted article. I recommend reading the article; I'm just warning of RS style especially for those who have never read RS. For the record, I have a subscription to RS. Yes, I read their liberal articles. Even though slanted, their reporting brings a different light on many issues. Everyone should listen to boths sides of an issue. Unlike a recent episode of the "Joy Behar Show" on CNN in which, from all who could be interviewed, Joy interviewed Janeane Garfalo on the critism to the President's response to the oil spill (if someone could tell me what qualifications make Ms. Garfalo a person to bring on a show to discuss politics or the oil spill response or the President's speech, I'd like to hear them), Ms. Garfalo states, "there are two sides to every story is untrue. We all know there is only one." Don't be short-sighted in your views such that you ignore human psychology in the fact that everyone sees a different perspective of an event based on who they are. Listen to all sides of a story not just your side's!

References:

Hastings, M. (2010, July 8-22). The runaway general. Rolling Stone, 1108/1109, 90-97 and 120-121.

Starr, B. (2010). Military official disputes Rolling Stone article. Retrieved 27 Jun 2010 from http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/25/mcchrystal.interview/index.html?iref=allsearch

ASME. (2010). Michael Hastings, the journalist behind the Rolling Stone article, "The runaway general". Retrieved 27 Jun 2010 from http://www.asme.magazine.org/asme/michael-hastings.aspx

Larry King Live. (2010). Interview with "Rolling Stone" writer Michael Hastings. Retrieved 27 Jun 2010 from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/interview_with_rolling_stone_writer_michael_hastings_106089.html