Yesterday in one of Politico’s write-ups of the furor that ensued as it became known that damaging quotes from General Stanley McChrystal and his staff would appear in an article by Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone, the following paragraphs appeared:
McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department.And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.
And in the version of that article live on the site today, what’s happened to the material on Hastings’s favorable position to report damaging remarks: poof!
Politico managing editor Bill Nichols declined to discuss the deletion with me or to send on a version of the article as it was originally published—making it quite difficult to tell how extensively the article was revised or “updated” beyond this excision.
“[W]e don’t get into why we make editing decisions,” Nichols wrote in a brief email.
The current version notes that it was updated at 8:35 this morning, but there’s no note to inform readers how or why the article was changed.
The paragraph was widely touted as a perhaps unintentionally revealing diagnosis of the dangers of Washington reporters becoming captive to the institutions on their beat: prominently on Andrew Sullivan’s blog, by my colleague Liz on this blog, in tweets from Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen, and many others.
UPDATE, 6-24, 1pm: Politico Deputy Managing Editor Tim Grieve has written Jay Rosen to say that he, without prompting from anyone else, removed the section “solely for the purposes of keeping the story tight and readable” as more information came in and was incorporated into the article.
It tells us a lot about Politico and maybe about journalism in general, but to suggest that Gen McChrystal is not media savvy, esp after the 60 Minutes piece, borders on crazy talk. Is it possible that Gen McChrystal knew exactly what he was doing and trying to get fired before this whole Afghanistan plan blows up?
#1 Posted by Barth, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 03:30 PM
Something tells me if Gen. McChrystal wanted out, he would just retire.
Better to be thought of a sudden retirement - rather than the public disgrace of getting fired.
#2 Posted by murph, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 04:38 PM
Barth, my take is that "it depends." In a straight-up, apolitical alternate reality, what you say makes perfect sense. In post-Bush (post-Reagan, actually) American politics, getting fired by *this* president will be seen by far too many in the reich wing as a badge of honor. My bet is that he'll go into politics within the next couple of years — and not as a progressive internationalist. A pity, really, because his career and published thinking argue that he'd be a good one.
#3 Posted by Jeff Dickey, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 03:33 AM
Here's a scenario: General and aides seek to convey an in-the-trenches view for other political purposes (e.g. shifting sentiment on firepower restrictions) while completely miscalculating their ability to guide certain aspects of the storyline.
#4 Posted by Joseph Kingsbury, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 09:33 AM
The Editors at Rolling Stone knew that publishing McChrystal's remarks would, at the least, seriously weaken him and would very likely lead to his resignation.
I wonder, did they consider even for a moment the negative impact this would have on the war, and the US' strategy in the Middle East? Has anyone in the media considered that it might be better for all concerned not to run the story?
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 10:21 AM
Gen. McChrystal is certainly no idiot. He's also an ass kicker, his career in special ops emphasized results over bureaucracy. It was apparent last year Obama wasn't serious about winning in Afghanistan, he just wanted to get out while still looking good, which meant winning in the short term if possible, else just getting out while minimizing his exposure to civilian casualties and rising war costs.
The General has seen he had no real support in this administration and didn't want to be saddled with the failure. I'd bet a month's pay he figured "f-it", if he wasn't going to be allowed to win this war he'd make them remove him. He gets to leave with his head held high and if the war goes well it'll be in part because of him, but if it doesn't it won't be his fault because he'd been removed from command...
Amazing that no commanding general had been removed in over 50yrs yet Obama has done it twice in about a year. I agree with his decision, but in a few weeks or months when this blows over Obama should also shake up his national security council and others who have shown either incompetence or a lack of focus on this war. Whether their party "likes" it or not, it's their war and their responsibility to complete it.
#6 Posted by Chuck, Sacramento, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 10:39 AM
There were some details volunteered by the writer of the story that the initial interviews and meetings were typical of access to gathering information news in a war zone. It was all formality and set piece interviews. The problems began for the generals staff and support people when the reporter's stay was lengthened by the events of the Iceland volcano. Flights and connections were such that the reporter was on site for nearly a month. He became a familiar figure and the guard was dropped when making humorous and revealing small talk among the command staff. The rest of the story is history.
#7 Posted by Zen Bonobo, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 10:42 AM
I'm with barth, dickey, & chuck. Rats have the sense to abandon a sinking ship. Not that I think he's a rat. Just a powerful man who sees a more promising path to more power.
#8 Posted by wanderoo, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 03:34 PM
In response to JLD's comment: "Has anyone in the media considered that it might be better for all concerned not to run the story?"
Yes, I'm sure they did consider it. Most decisions — even seemingly small ones — are considered. But "better" is pretty subjective, don't you think?
#9 Posted by newsy, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 10:13 PM
Hmmm. Define "win this war." What does that actually mean?
Riding in a Hummer convoy into Kandahar, Cubs banners flying, the Afghan people bowing on one knee as they ride by, received at the palace by a humbled, bowing Karzai, escorted to the third floor window to wave to the throngs of adoring subjects after penning ones name on a papyrus scroll with a flourish?
Idiots.
#10 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 25 Jun 2010 at 01:47 PM
The last guy to actually 'win' a war in what is now Afghanistan was Ghengis Khan, about 1,000 years ago. These people are tribal. brutal, patient and experienced. They cannot beat our technology so they will wait us out.
I really think Osama Bin Laden is the winner here as he adopted Reagan's strategy toward the Russians - bleed 'em. We (the US and allies) are being bled financially, morally (killing children with bombs) and in terms of our service men and women. Rather than using our financial capital and manpower to strengthen our nation we are pissing it away in what is essentially and un-winable situation. OBL read The Art Of War very closely...
#11 Posted by Dave, CJR on Tue 29 Jun 2010 at 02:05 AM
Afghanistan is not a winnable war, we should not even be there, look what happened to the Russians.
Organic Gardening
#12 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 5 Sep 2010 at 04:59 AM
This isn't that unbelievable, but what is--is the inability to admit that we're making a poor decision.
This is extremely similar to what happened with Vietnam, and soon in no time--we'll be witnessing history repeat itself. Which will not be pleasant.
Bien and Robinson
#13 Posted by Craig, CJR on Mon 13 Sep 2010 at 04:49 AM