The media gets it wrong (again) on Afghanistan
I’ve always admired CBS News reporter Lara Logan’s war-zone reporting. She strikes me as courageous, skeptical and level-headed.
But her response to the Stanley McChyrstal expose in Rolling Stone is startling and suggests the weakness of current journalism about our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Watch her comments — and those of Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings — here.
Logan lays out an argument that a journalist’s broad loyalty should lie with the soldiers and military officers that he or she is covering.
And she accuses Hastings, with absolutely no evidence to support her attack, of violating the terms of his access agreement with the US Army and McChrystal’s staff.
The truth is that no one is questioning the facts of Hastings’ story:
He uncovered incontrovertible evidence of top military commanders in Afghanistan who feel utter contempt for their civilian leaders.
As Andrew Bacevich points out in this Washington Post piece, that’s a very dangerous thing.
[I]ndications that the military’s professional ethic is eroding, evident in the disrespect for senior civilians expressed by McChrystal and his inner circle, should set off alarms.
Earlier generations of American leaders, military as well as civilian, instinctively understood the danger posed by long wars. ”
A democracy cannot fight a Seven Years War,” Gen. George C. Marshall once remarked.
Hastings’ article also revealed the deep misgivings within America’s top military command about the future of the Afghan conflict — also crucial information for those of us back home trying to understand this conflict.
In her attack on Hastings, Logan says she’s not sure she would have revealed that information in her stories — then she adds this:
“Is what General McChyrstal and his aides were doing so egregious that they deserved to — I mean, to end a career like McChyrstal’s? I mean, Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.”
The answer to Logan’s question is Yes. There is a broad professional and political consensus that Stanley McChrystal crossed a bright line — one that is crucial to the future of civilian control of the military.
To her second point, I think it’s clear that in times of war, journalists can and do sometimes serve their countries in crucial (perhaps even heroic) ways.
Whether they’re revealing the shameful conditions at Walter Reed Hospital, exposing the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s death (an incident for which Gen. McChyrstal was partly culpable), or offering a glimpse of a “runaway general,” great reporting matters.
Before Logan goes back into the field, her editors at CBS should question her closely about where her loyalties lie — with the military that she covers, or with her audience back home that deserves to hear the unvarnished truth.
When you’re given the type of access that many combat reporters are given, you should check your loyalties. How many times have news organizations undermined our military in Iraq and Afghanistan? Getting a story at all costs has created two fronts where our commanders need to deceive the enemy as well as our own press. We read every day where our next mission will be, where we’re building up our troops, what unit is deploying and when, and now how screwed up our chain of command is (truthfully, if you’re in the military you already guessed that). Did it cross the mind of the reporter to try to have this handled behind closed doors? Of course not, because that wouldn’t get you your 15 minutes. In the age of tabloid journalism, paparazzi-like photography, and articles that become the story, we are our own worst enemy.
Don’t there have to be ground rules for putting a reporter in any situation? Isn’t it common for interviewees to put certain topics off limits? What is the truth? Don’t journalists invoke their right to protect their sources all the time and refuse to tell us who was telling the truth? Is NPR or CBS or Fox or The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal telling the truth? Are Americans or Brits or Greeks or Israelies telling the truth?
1. There are usually ground rules when journalists deal with the military. Absolutely no one has claimed on the record with any supporting evidence that this Rolling Stone reporter violated those agreements. Nor have they disputed the factual accuracy of the article.
2. I know of no case in Iraq or Afghanistan where a reporter revealed sensitive strategic information about combat operations that compromised a mission. Not one case. I do know of cases where reporters revealed incompetence, lack of supplies, and command confusion that were costing soldiers’ lives.
3. You suggest that journalists should negotiate backroom deals when they discover sensitive and important information. That’s not their job.
It’s the rest of us — the citizens and leaders of our democracy — who have to make informed decisions.
–Brian, NCPR
Good reporting by RSM but what I find missing in the reporting follow-up is why McCrystal et.al. have no respect for Obama & his team.
Brian, Good analysis of what was so, so wrong with Lara Logan’s position on the Hasting’s story. Jealousy aside….and I gotta think that plays a role here….she comes across as a McChrystal crony not a reporter. Good on Rolling Stone. Now people are paying attention to Afghanistan. And isn’t that what Ms. Logan claims she wants?
Honestly, I feel bad for McCrystal. After this came out I guess he had to go, and it is a lesson for everyone going forward, but do you think that Gen. Patton and his staff didn’t say things like this or far worse?
Yes, Stanley should have kept his trap shut in front of a reporter and should have reminded his staff to watch it with a reporter in the room but the proof of a military officer is not in what he said behind closed doors. Rather it is in carrying out his orders.
As for Lara Logan I lost respect for her after the Blackwater Erik Prince interview.
Speaking of Blackwater I think wonder if McChrystal is going to end up with their new company? They just were awarded a huge new contract in Afghanistan.
JPM, we’re not supposed to wonder about that.
Here are some examples:
Geraldo Rivera giving out a unit position (NY Times), Prince William serving in country (Drudge)… mainly it’s social networking sites that allow commenting though.
I by no means said they should negotiate backroom deals, not even close. Please don’t insinuate that’s what I meant. I meant that if there is a problem, bring the issue up to someone who can fix it, then report on it.
If you have a reporter on your staff that writes fiction, would you write an article or blog about it first or would you confront the person and his/her superiors?
Military reporting is a different animal where moral, security, and safety should outweigh getting the scoop first IF POSSIBLE. Obviously there are stories that need to be told FIRST.
I commend the reporters and what they do 99% of the time, however I think some discretion could be used on that 1%.
The reporter risks being “scooped”, so I know it’s not reasonable.