In the self-loathing world revolving around the New York Times, I suppose someone like Polk Award-winning investigative reporter Michael Hastings represented a threat to their corporate media style.
The truth is, Michael Hastings could at times be as abrasive as he was probative in carrying out his brand of actual investigative journalism. (it's refreshing to actually join those two words together for a change) But that abrasiveness tenacity never stopped him from getting to the real nitty-gritty of a story. Nor did it stop him from getting the interviews he needed to write it. He was fearless. And he never minced words. Not in his writing nor in his broadcast interviews. The man took down a general -- no easy feat in the times we find ourselves -- a general with an apparent Douglas MacArthur complex. A general who constantly undermined both his civilian leadership, and the mission he was charged with. A general who, although his name will always be inextricably linked with Hastings doesn't deserve to be uttered in the same sentence with Hastings. It was a good day for the country when General Stanley McChrystal tendered his resignation to President Obama. A damn good day. But since that day, the military establishment, and those in the traditional media who serve it, have tried their level best to marginalize and discredit Hastings' work, even after his tragic death.
It hasn't worked. Hastings' writing will continue to stand the test of time.
In the 24 hours since the tragic death of journalist and author Michael Hastings was first reported on Tuesday, those who knew him, worked with him, and covered his work have offered numerous remembrances of the man best known for his Polk Award-winning Rolling Stone piece, “The Runaway General.”
That article, which presented a dim view of the U.S. strategy in the Afghanistan war and exposed a military command structure working to actively undermine its civilian leadership, also contained several accounts of less-than-professional behavior and comments by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the International Security Assistance Force commander, the disclosure of which led to McChrystal tendering his resignation in June 2010.
But it’s an obituary in The New York Times that has sounded a discordant note amid the rest of the encomiums. And now Hastings’ widow, Elise Jordan, is firing back at Times brass.
A relevant portion of that embarrassingly deceptive obituary, penned by Margalit Fox, follows below.
An inquiry into the article by the Defense Department inspector general the next year found “insufficient” evidence of wrongdoing by the general, his military aides and civilian advisers. The inspector general’s report also questioned the accuracy of some aspects of the article, which was repeatedly defended by Mr. Hastings and Rolling Stone.
(Fox also identifies Hastings’ piece as a “cover story.” It was not. Rolling Stone featured Lady Gaga on the cover of the issue containing “The Runaway General.”)
One almost doesn't know where to start when pointing out the inaccuracies of even that small portion of the obituary. First off, Fox's erroneous claim that McChrystal was ever "cleared" by a
Pentagon inspector generals report (pdf) has been a long-running meme at the Times and other major news organizations in the U.S. since Hastings' article appeared in Rolling Stone. The article's first mention in an story by the Times carried the title
"Pentagon Inquiry Into Article Clears McChrystal and Aides," back on August 18th 2011. The Pentagon did everything
but clear McChrystal.
From the HuffPo:
It’s unclear whether the Times' reaction to Hastings' story is rooted in professional jealousy or a knee-jerk defense of the establishment. The inspector general's report said it could not confirm some elements of Hastings' reporting, but that was to be expected. Hastings quotes the general and his aides making disparaging remarks about their civilian superiors. Such people would be unlikely to acknowledge having said such things, especially considering that Hastings allowed some of them to remain nameless.
Hastings' wife decided to push back against the Times' obituary. Her emails to both the editor, Jill Abramson and the obituary editor Bill McDonald asked the paper to correct the article but McDonald flatly rejected her request.
Both emails were provided to The Huffington Post:
Dear Jill, I was shocked and saddened to read a blatant mischaracterization of my late husband Michael Hastings’s Rolling Stone story “The Runaway General” in his obituary.
The obituary states: “An inquiry into Mr. Hastings’s article by the Defense Department inspector general the next year found ‘insufficient’ evidence of wrongdoing by the general, his military aides and civilian advisers. The inspector general’s report also questioned the accuracy of some aspects of the article, which was repeatedly defended by Mr. Hastings and Rolling Stone’s editors.”
If a reporter at the Times actually would read and properly analyze the Pentagon report, they would find exactly the opposite. The report clearly states: “In some instances, we found no witness who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported. In other instances, we confirmed that the general substance of an incident at issue occurred, but not in the exact context described in the article.”
As Rolling Stone stated in response to the Pentagon report, “The report by the Pentagon’s inspector general offers no credible source — or indeed, any named source — contradicting the facts as reported in our story, ‘The Runaway General.’ Much of the report, in fact, confirms our reporting, noting only that the Pentagon was unable to find witnesses ‘who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported.’ This is not surprising, given that the civilian and military advisers questioned by the Pentagon knew that their careers were on the line if they admitted to making such comments.”
Unfortunately, the mischaracterization in the obituary reflects a longstanding -– and ongoing –- misrepresentation of the facts in and surrounding this story by the Times. Your archived story of the Pentagon report, for example, still carries the headline: “Pentagon Inquiry Into Article Clears McChrystal and Aides,” even though the report did no such thing. Insufficient evidence to prosecute is not the same as “clearing” someone of a misdeed. It is as if a district attorney had found no witnesses to prosecute a suspected murderer – the only other witnesses being his accomplices -– and the Times ran a story headlined, “DA Clears Alleged Killer.”
I personally transcribed and have all the tape recordings of Michael’s interviews during his time with McChrystal and his staff. I can personally verify that some of the most damning comments were made by McChrystal himself, and many others made by his aides in his presence were greeted with his enthusiastic approval. Michael refused to give further evidence to the Pentagon investigators, even though he could have directly attributed a host of insubordinate comments to others on the general’s staff, in part because he believed that it was not the role of a journalist to open his notebooks to the military, and in part because he felt that what was needed when it came to the war in Afghanistan was not a change in personnel, but in policy.
I trust you’ll make these corrections online and before you print tomorrow’s paper.
McDonald’s reply:
Dear Ms. Jordan Jill Abramson passed along your email concerning our obituary about Mr. Hastings. First, I hope you’ll accept our condolences. I must say, however, that I don’t believe we’ve mischaracterized the Defense Department report from 2011. As the report stated, “Not all of the events at issue occurred as reported in the article. In some instances, we found no witness who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported. In other instances, we confirmed that the general substance of an incident at issue occurred, but not in the exact context described in the article.” In other words, as the obit states, “the inspector general’s report … questioned the accuracy of some aspects of the article.” I don’t know how else you could interpret the passage quoted above (“not all of the events occurred as reported,” incidents occurred “not in the exact context described”). I think it’s also clear that it’s not The Times that is questioning the article’s accuracy; it was the Defense Department. We’re simply reporting what it publicly said, while noting that your husband received a Polk Award for the article and was vigorously defended by Rolling Stone. So we see no reason to change the obituary. Again, I’m very sorry about your loss.
Apparently, McDonald would rather besmirch the reputation of a respected and honored investigative journalist than admit his obituary of him was clearly written with both bias and contempt.
Paper of record my ass.