Geraldo Rivera has declared that Rolling Stone Magazine is a journalistic miscreant for not treating comments that weren’t expressly “on the record” as “off the record,” and reporting the derogatory comments of now-deposed Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff regarding President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and others. The upcoming article’s contents, he reasons, do no good and much bad, and are irresponsible…”a terrible thing.”
Some news media reporting in times of war are indeed irresponsible and unethical, as when the New York Times has published the details of intelligence operations. This is not such a case. Rivera is blaming the messenger, Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, for not only doing his job but for performing a national service. If the commanding general in a U.S. war is openly contemptuous of the civilian leadership, it undermines morale and the chain of command. President Obama needed to know that his commander was talking about him and his team in such disrespectful terms, and also that McChrystal was so reckless as to permit a Rolling Stone reporter to hear it all. The President needed to know so he could do exactly what he did: remove McChrystal and appoint someone he could trust.
It is true that the Rolling Stone article piles more problems on a drifting administration that is already drowning in them. That is not the publication’s fault. The fact that McChrystal holds the President in such low regard is news. The report that Gen. George Patton slapped a soldier suffering from battle fatigue cost the Allies one of its most effecting commanders at a crucial time in World War II, but it still had to be reported. We don’t need or want journalists to be deciding what is or isn’t good for the country to know, unless the information will directly lead to American deaths or defeat.
Yes, Rolling Stone has a political agenda. It has historically been an anti-war magazine. McChrystal knew that, too; nobody can claim that he is naive about the press. Generals know the difference between on the record and off the record statements. If a reporter from Rolling Stone is hanging around, and Hastings was essentially embedded with U.S. forces, a sophisticated military officer knows that everything the reporter hears is subject to publication unless it is specifically agreed otherwise.
This is not a case where the reporter manufactures a story, as a Sports Illustrated reporter did in 1999 by gulling star Atlanta Braves relief pitcher John Rocker into making a series of bigoted comments. The resulting sensational article started Rocker’s career on a downward spiral from which it never recovered. A major league pitcher’s ignorant opinions about Asians and gays, however, are not especially relevant to his ability to do his job; a general’s respect for and loyalty to his Commander and Chief is crucial.
It is so crucial, in fact, that what McChrystal did is prohibited in the Uniform Code of Military Justice in strong terms:
ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Geraldo, not for the first time, has things exactly backwards. It wasn’t “terrible” for Rolling Stone to report the general’s words. It would have been terrible for it not to.
Ethics Alarms 
Dear Jack: I should also point out that a journalist in the field- a war correspondent- has certain duties himself. It’s not just his job to report the news or, as so often these days, give the news from a skeptical bias. As an “embedded” journalist, he likewise occupies a position of trust. There are times when they must use discernment in what they print for the higher good of not disrupting a military campaign when soldiers are at risk. Before the D-Day invasion, General Eisenhower briefed correspondents on his risky decision. That wouldn’t happen today. Guys like Hastings are the reason why. Ernie Pyle, when he saw ineffective or callous leadership in the field, would not write a splashy “expose” article that might play into the enemy’s hands, but would speak to the officer or drop a word up the chain of command for redress. Being a man of integrity, he was listened to. Hastings is not a man of integrity. In WWII, correspondents were Americans first and journalists second. Today’s version is out for themselves; first and last. If they can bring down a commanding general for some unguarded private remarks, they will do so.
Steven: it’s the Rolling Stone, which was born protesting the Vietnam war. They have a viewpoint. They shouldn’t have to suddenly become objective because a Gen. loads their weapons for them.
Oh, pshaw, Steven. The stuff Hasting reported is hardly troop endangerment stuff. Indeed, if a field commander is slamming the Commander in Chief, that endangers the troops more than reporting it. If I can’t trust a subordinate to be loyal and discreet, out he goes. Hastings and Obama weren’t the villains here.
Gee. I haven’t been “pshawed” in a long time! My point is that Rolling Stone IS, as you say, a magazine born from an anti-American counterculture. However, when operating as a journalistic entity in the field- and under the protection of the very sort of men their predecessors despised- they should conduct themselves accordingly. Instead, their corrspondent went out looking for a hit piece… and got it. It endangers the troops because it not only created a distraction up top with a major campaign about to kick off, but it also creates a problem with morale. After seeing what’s happened to their commanding general- and then seeing other such “imbedded” pseudo-journalists wandering around loose- they’re all going to be looking over their shoulders now. That, in turn, provides aid and comfort to the enemy. Once more, I’m seeing signs of a Vietnam style betrayal in the works.