In Defense of “Off-The-Record”
Let me make one thing “McChrystal clear:” My job as a journalist is to uncover truth, not cover-up it up. I have an unambiguous duty to do that to the best of my ability, while acting in an ethical, honest, and impartial way.
And at times, agreeing to witness important, even historic events, “off-the-record” can be an invaluable tool in doing that job.
When I discussed this subject on NPR’s On the Media this weekend, host Bob Garfield presciently predicted, “I can tell you that there will be comments beneath this interview on our website that say ‘Jamie McIntyre has rationalized the sleazy dynamic between defense reporters and the people they are covering. He’s drunk the Kool-Aid, he’s breathing his own fumes…’” Obligingly, someone named Isaac posted those exact words.
My obligation is to my readers, viewers and listeners, not to the government, or even to my employer, for that matter. Access is not an end, it’s a means. For what shall it profit a reporter if he gains access, and loses his journalistic soul?
And, any journalists who think that they can succeed in exposing official malfeasance, or provide real context and understanding, without the use of anonymous sources, leaked documents, and confidentially agreements, and yes, sometimes going off the record is naïve or a fool.
Most veteran reporters were shocked that Rolling Stone’s Michael Hastings was able to secure on-the-record fly-on-the-wall access, because those kind of inside-the-tent and after-hours social events are almost always off-the-record, by mutual agreement.
Now it turns out that McChrystal and his staff DID believe those conversations and some of the irreverent trash-talking were off limits, according to the Washington Post.
But let me make another thing “McChrystal clear:” Whatever journalistic transgression Hastings may or may not have committed, it did not excuse the words and deeds of McChrystal and his staff. He should never have tolerated officers who thought it was okay to diss their civilian bosses, something, by the way, which can be a court-martialing offense.
And the fact is Hastings got the story not because his outsider status, but because of his background as a war correspondent and because of the long tradition of military reporters honoring ground rules that put some conversations and venues off-the-record.
The conventional wisdom of media critics is congealing around the notion that Hastings, as a one-off freelancer in no need of any long-term relationship of trust, was better positioned to report the unvarnished truth. And by implication beat reporters, like myself, pull our punches to curry favor in order to maintain our “access.” Or as Jon Stewart so succinctly put it on The Daily Show, “The American News media finally realized, they kinda suck.”
Writing in the New York Times, Frank Rich noted that blogger Andrew Sullivan highlighted it as “a devastating indictment of a Washington media elite too cozy with and protective of its sources to report the unvarnished news.” Rich’s takeaway:
“It’s the Hastings-esque outsiders with no fear of burning bridges who have often uncovered the epochal stories missed by those with high-level access. Woodward and Bernstein were young local reporters, nowhere near the White House beat, when they cracked Watergate. Seymour Hersh was a freelancer when he broke My Lai. It was uncelebrated reporters in Knight Ridder’s Washington bureau, not journalistic stars courted by Scooter and Wolfowitz, who mined low-level agency hands to challenge the “slam-dunk” W.M.D. intelligence in the run-up to Iraq.”
It’s ironic that Rich would cite Bob Woodward as an example, because it was Woodward with his long record of protecting sources who broke the story of the McChrystal report, which for the first time showed how aware the commander was that Afghanistan was going south. In fact, all of the reporters Rich cited made extensive use of the standard journalistic conventions to protect sources and ferret out information. Do you think none of them ever agreed to go “off-the-record?”
Many people have asked me, “So, would you have reported the disrespectful comments of McChrystal and his staff, if you were there?”
This is a really interesting question of journalistic ethics, and it one difficult to answer honestly in retrospect. But let me explain something about off-the-record, which underscores what most reporters and newsmakers inherently understand. Nothing newsworthy is ever totally off-the-record, in the sense that it will stay secret forever. Especially if its of great importance or involves wrongdoing.
So when Bob Woodward got a copy of the McChrystal report last September, (Which he had agreed to hold for his book that would be published some time in the distant future) he went back to his sources and said, words to the effect of, “This is too important, I can’t sit on this, I’m going to have to publish it.” And he did, because he could. Because agreements between sources and reporters are subject to renegotiation, and even abrogation, depending on the circumstances.
And that’s what Hastings should have done, assuming he was in fact “off-the-record.” You go back to the source and say, “Look, I can’t sit on this information, it’s too significant.” I can’t say for sure what I would have done if I were in Hastings’ place, but I can imagine a wide range of circumstances in which I would regret to inform my source that my off-the-record pledge would have be to broken. Like what? Well, if for instance I witnessed a war crime, or saw that the military was flat-out lying about an incident or a failure, or if says, a senior commander called the president a racial epithet. None of that would survive the off-the-record gentleman’s agreement. But I can also say in all my years of being in off-the-record situations I never witnesses anything like the breakdown in discipline Hastings saw traveling with McChrystal.
The idea of going off-the-record is to increase the reporter’s knowledge, understanding, and yes sometimes empathy for the subject, with the hope knowledge will produce more textured, nuanced, and accurate stories.
Just because reporters might agree to be a “fly on the wall” and not report everything they see, doesn’t mean they lose their critical faculties or sight of their mission.
What Gen. Stanley McChrystal did was really stupid. Not because he didn’t have stricter ground rules, but because he allowed his staff to engage in “conduct unbecoming.” And whether Michael Hastings violated any agreement, or McChrystal’s public affairs officer failed to secure an agreement is immaterial at this point. The failing is McChrystal’s, period.
Hastings and his editors at Rolling Stone did what they thought was right, and I tend to agree with them. But journalism is not just about getting one splashy scoop and retiring. The most common sentiment expressed by editor is, “Great, but what have you done for me lately?”
The controversy has also detracted from the most significant reporting in the piece, namely how the U.S. is losing in Afghanistan and pretty much everyone there knows it, whether they admit it or not. I’ll address that in a future posting.
LINKS:
1. “The 36 Hours That Shook Washington,” New York Times, June 25, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27rich.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1277669105-wKll9/zXZoVuHPLYKsCv6Q
2. “McChrystal’s Balls — Honorable Discharge,” The Daily Show, Comedy Central, June 23, 2010
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-23–2010/mcchrystal-s-balls—honorable-discharge
3. “Gen. McChrystal allies, Rolling Stone disagree over article’s ground rules,” The Washington Post, June 26, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504087.html
4. “The Scoop on Bob Woodward’s Big Scoop”, Line of Departure, December 6, 2009
http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2009/12/06/the-scoop-on-bob-woodwards-big-scoop/
5. “The McChrystal Bombshell,” NPR’s “On The Media,” June 25, 2010
http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2010/06/25/segments/156521
Tags: ground rules, McChrystal, Off the record
