Don’t Panic. We’ve heard all this before. The essential element of tabloid journalism is to state the ordinary in extraordinary terms, to write a story that while technically true is totally, and often deliberately, misleading.

Let’s be clear: WikiLeaks is an anti-privacy, anti-secrecy group, whose primary tenet is that nothing should be kept from the world, not military secrets, not sources or methods of intelligence gathering, not even the secret rituals of fraternities and sororities. WikiLeaks seems to me to to be functioning less in the tradition of good old-fashioned muckrakers, and more like anti-privacy terrorists.

Criticism is not something big media organizations take well. The quick, easy, expedient solution was to cut her loose. It’s too bad. Let me be clear. I agree with CNN and Octavia Nasr that her tweet was a serious error in judgment. However, I also accept both her apology and explanation, which is a measure of forgiveness CNN could not manage, because of its sensitivity to external condemnation.

There will be a lot of handwringing inside and outside media circles about the new Pentagon rules will make the missions of both the military and the media more difficult. But the truth is little will change. Meanwhile the whole episode serves as reminder to both sides of the military/media divide just where their loyalties should lie.

CBS Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan certainly did herself and her fellow war correspondent no favors with her inept defense of war zone ground rules, even as she may have been right about a few things. In defending the press corps, against charges they are too chummy with the military, Logan wounded them grievously with misaimed friendly fire. She unfortunately reinforced the worst stereotype of reporters who “embed” with senior military officers but are actually “in bed” with them.

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.

Two unfortunate consequences are likely to flow from the demise of Gen. Stan McChrystal because his incautious, career-killing over-sharing with a reporter for Rolling Stone.
1. Opportunities for reporters to witness the inner workings of military commanders firsthand will dry up, at least in the short run.
2. The credibility of mainstream defense media will take an unfair hit, as critics pounce on the “revelation” some journalists have are not been reporting everything they see and hear, in return for continued access.

The Rolling Stone reporter has speculated Gen. Stanley McChrystal exhibited “a sort of natural kind of recklessness.” I have another theory: Gen. McChrystal might have been under the misimpression Hastings would protect him, in return for the great access and candor.

If I could permanently puncture one pernicious popular journalistic canard it would be this one:

“The quality of journalism would improve if reporters asked more contentious questions of public officials at government-controlled news conferences and press briefings.”

There are other Helen Thomases out there. Big name reporters, with big time reputations who you would not want to cover YOU, if YOU were to ever fall under the scrutiny of the press. Arrogant, agenda-driven, self-aggrandizing charlatans who survive by gaming the system, and prosper because of an overabundance of professional courtesy.