DOWNLOADS: (261)

PLAYS: (4578)

Embed

A spokesperson for the Department of State recently seemed to be really enjoying his job as called out Fox News correspondent Justin Fishel for asking an "asinine" question that suggested Secretary Hillary Clinton had faked her illness to avoid testifying about September attacks in Benghazi.

Officials revealed last month that Clinton's testimony would be postponed after she became sick, fainted and suffered a concussion. Just two days later, Fishel showed up at a State Department press briefing and seemed to question the official story.

"Toria, can you expand on why Secretary Clinton can’t testify on Thursday about this?" the Fox News correspondent asked department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, according to a transcript. "It seems that she has not been available to testify on the Benghazi situation on some very key dates, including the Sunday after 9/11 and now this Thursday."

"As we put out on Saturday, she is still under the weather," Nuland calmly explained. "She was diagnosed as having suffered a concussion, and her doctors have urged her to stay home this week. So it’s on that basis that she’s asked for the committees’ understanding... But it was her intention to be there. If she had not been ill, she would be there."

In an email obtained by The Washington Post and published on Wednesday, Clinton Senior Advisor Philippe Reines took a much snarkier tone with Fishel.

"We owe you an apology," Reines wrote. "I’m almost embarrassed to even admit this – but somehow your question at today’s Daily Press Briefing was somehow completely mauled and transcribed in the release."

"I just called them and read them the riot act for putting such misleading, accusatory, and absolutely asinine words in your mouth. Because after what we and her doctors explained over the weekend regarding her health, you couldn’t possibly have been insinuating the ulterior motives that question implies. No way. No credible journalist would do that without any basis whatsoever."

Reines continued by pointing out that there was no way "an informed reporter" would compare testifying before Congress with appearing an Sunday morning talk shows as Fishel seemed to do by asking why Clinton had "not been available to testify" in an interview on Fox News on the Sunday after the attacks instead of United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice.

"I don’t know Chris Wallace all that well, but I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t place his television show on par with one of the three branches of our government," Reines insisted. "And therefore, saying that this has happened on multiple ‘key dates’ is simply a blatant lie and grossly misleading to the public."

"Anyway, our sincere apologies," he concluded. "If you send us what you really said, I’ll make sure it’s properly reflected."

Last year, Reines had taken a less-subtle approach with BuzzFeed correspondent Michael Hastings, telling him to "fuck off" and "have a good life."

DOWNLOADS: (258)

PLAYS: (3083)

Embed

I would imagine that Piers Morgan and the producers at CNN were expecting BuzzFeed's Michael Hastings to be pretty harsh on the now scandal ridden Gen. David Petraeus, because I find it hard to believe they would have invited him on the air without reading his recent article here -- The Sins Of General David Petraeus.

What they probably didn't expect was for him to go after the other guest, their own Barbara Starr for taking dictation from the Pentagon and the media in general for their worship of Petraeus. Whatever the case, it was well worth the time watching the segment just to see Piers Morgan squirm in discomfort with his response to Hastings.

MORGAN: Paula Broadwell calling David Petraeus a role model. How things have changed. Joining me now is General Mark Kimmitt who has known General Petraeus for 25 years, also Michael Hastings, Buzzfeed reporter and writing for "Rolling Stone." He says America should have never trusted Petraeus in the first place. And Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona, a former Defense Intelligence officer who also served with the CIA. Welcome to you all.

General Kimmitt, let me start with you. You've known General Petraeus for 25 years. Do you recognize the man that you've been reading about for the last 24 hours?

GEN. GEORGE KIMMITT, FMR. DIRECTOR, PLANS & STRATEGIES, CENTRAL COMMAND: Well, in many ways, I do, because with this one exception of this incident that he had with Paula Broadwell, I think the fact that this was a guy that stood up when the facts became known, did the honorable thing and resigned. That's the David Petraeus that I know.

MORGAN: Should a general in his position, who has moved on to run the CIA, have to resign his post over an affair, which is really what this seems to have been about?

KIMMITT: My opinion, yes. Any commander of an organization who is caught in that kind of compromising behavior, someone who is supposed to set the standards and enforce the standards for that organization, when he is caught in a compromising position, he's got to do the honorable thing and step down. I think Attorney General Mukasey mentioned that as well. And I stand behind those comments as well.

Any commander that has lost the trust and confidence of his unit has to stand down. MORGAN: Michael Hastings, in your Buzzfeed article, "The Sins of General David Petraeus," you argue that Petraeus was a master of deception. Do you think he should have resigned?

MICHAEL HASTINGS, "ROLLING STONE": I think there's many other reasons Petraeus should have resigned besides who he's sleeping with that's not his wife. But I just want to make a point here. The larger point that I've been making is that essentially the media has played a role in protecting David Petraeus and promoting David Petraeus and mythologizing David Petraeus.

We saw it here tonight. General Kimmitt, who was a spokesperson in Baghdad, who was a roommate of Petraeus, who was involved in one of the biggest debacles in recent foreign policy history, is on TV defending David Petraeus without actually addressing the real problems with David Petraeus' record.

Those are the fact that he manipulated the White House into escalating Afghanistan. He ran a campaign in Iraq that was brutally savage, included arming the worst of the worst, Shiite death squads, Sunni militiamen. And then you go back to the training of the Iraqi army program that also had similar problems.

So for me, all the while, he's going around the country talking about honor and integrity. So for me the questions of honor and integrity -- I was raising those earlier. A number of other journalists who were actually covering David Petraeus were raising those concerns. You might not get that from someone like Barbara Starr at CNN, who essentially is a spokesperson for the Pentagon in many ways.

So I think I just want to step back and have my piece, because this -- even the way the scandal is being covered is so different than how usual sex scandals are being covered, where they hammer the guy mercilessly. Now everyone is saying oh, my God, he just went to the CIA; how could he be -- you know, he was susceptible to being seduced by this woman.

Give me a break. Petraeus now has all his allies coming out to defend him, where Paula Broadwell is there yet again -- where are her protectors?

MORGAN: Barbara is not a spokesperson for him, obviously. Let's move to --

HASTINGS: Not too obviously. I have followed her coverage pretty closely as she has covered my work before, too.

MORGAN: Just because she's written naughty things about you doesn't make her a spokesperson.

HASTINGS: No. What makes her a spokesperson is repeating without question a lot of Pentagon claims.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (896)

PLAYS: (2083)

Embed

Last week, CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan blasted a Rolling Stone reporter whose report may have cost Gen. Stanley McChrystal his job as commander in Afghanistan. Jamie McIntyre, a former CNN reporter who covered the Pentagon for 16 years, slammed Logan's comments Sunday.

After Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings exposed inflammatory comments by McChrystal and his staff about the President Barack Obama and the civilian leadership, Logan suggested that it was the job of a reporter to cultivate the trust of sources by not reporting certain damaging remarks.

"Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has," she told CNN's Howard Kurtz.

In a blog posting, McIntyre took exception to Logan's comments. "In defending herself and her compatriots in 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," he wrote.

"The most damaging thing she said was when she made the comment disparaging Michael Hastings by referring to the fact that he hadn't served his country the way the military did," McIntyre told Kurtz Sunday.

"That comment fed this perception that we're more interested in protecting the members of the military than pursuing aggressive journalism and in that sense it was a very damaging comment to make," he said.

DOWNLOADS: (724)

PLAYS: (1188)

Embed

Geraldo Rivera goes after Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings for his reporting which led to the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and goes so far as to compare him to al Qaeda. This is coming from the same guy that the military kicked out of Iraq back in 2003 because he disclosed information about troop movements on the air. He made similar remarks earlier in the week on Fox when he appeared with KT McFarland when he said "whoever was in charge of putting that reporter with those soldiers in that context allowed a rat to be in an eagle's nest." More on that from Reason Magazne:

Losing the War in Afghanistan? Blame Rolling Stone, Suggests Geraldo Rivera:

And now some pundits are making the reporter, Michael Hastings, out to be the bad guy. [...]

True, there are strategic implications: We learned that the top general in Afghanistan surrounds himself with idiots. As KT McFarland points out in the video, public officials and their aides should know better than to make disparaging and derogatory remarks in front of reporters. Far from having jeopardized our mission in Afghanistan—which is what Rivera is implying—the Rolling Stone article reveals important details about the people McChrystal relied on. Like, for instance, the McChrystal aide who described a meeting with a French minister as "f**king gay." Does this sound like the best team to head a war effort where the U.S. needs to win the hearts and minds of the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

I suspect Rivera is probably just jealous that someone went out and did real reporting for a change. Other journalists are jealous, too. Check out Jon Stewart making fun of them here.

During this interview with O'Reilly, Geraldo rails on about how the soldiers remarks should have been considered "off the record", he claims that they didn't know they were beig interviewed, he accuses Rolling Stone Magazine of being just as dangerous as al Qaeda to the mission in Afghanistan and wanting to rush the story to press without checking with the military first and even O'Reilly who obviously hates Rolling Stone for the article they did about him has to call out Geraldo for going over the top.

O'Reilly tells him that Rolling Stone claims they ran the quotes by Gen. McChrystal and he allowed the story to go to print and Geraldo does a complete 180 and says he'll take the magazine at their word and then credits Gen. McChrystal for "not trying to sleaze away." I guess it was asking too much of Geraldo to maybe actually find out himself if the magazine cleared the story with the military first before he went on the air and accused their reporter of being akin to a terrorist.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Jon Stewart takes a swipe at the media and their grave concern about why Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings got the access he did to Gen. McChrystal. Jason summed this up nicely over at the HuffPo.

Jon Stewart Mocks Media Reaction To Michael Hastings' Ability To Do Actual Journalism (VIDEO) [UPDATE]:

Rolling Stone's digital media strategy aside, I'm a bit dumbstruck at the way the traditional media have treated the magazine's story on General Stanley McChrystal as some sort of flukey journalistic junkshot that no one could have possibly expected.

Chris Matthews, bless his stuck-in-the-1970s heart, was agog this past Tuesday that a beacon of the "counterculture" could have ever gained access to McChrystal. I sort of wondered why the traditional media couldn't have done more, with all of their access!

So I was glad to see that "The Daily Show" took up the matter last night, with Jon Stewart mocking these past few days, in which "America's finest reporters" have been beside themselves with wonder at how a Rolling Stone reporter pulled off "reporting." Quipped Stewart: "At approximately 11:04 Eastern Standard Time, the American news media finally realized they kind of sucked."

And as Jason pointed out Jay Rosen has a great piece up about how Politico accidentally told the truth about being more concerned about access than actual journalism and then pulled it from the post.

The Politico Opens the Kimono. And then Pretends it Never Happened.:

As everyone who pays attention to the news knows by now, an article appeared in Rolling Stone this week by freelance reporter Michael Hastings that wound up forcing the resignation of General Stanley A. McChrystal as commander of American troops in Afghanistan. Hastings had been invited to hang out with McChrystal and his staff and was witness to their contempt for the civilian side of the war effort, which he reported on. It was a shock to everyone in Washington that McChrystal would make such a blunder, and the press began immediately to dissect it.

The Politico was so hopped up about the story that it took the extraordinary step of posting on its site a PDF of Rolling Stone’s article because Rolling Stone had not put it online fast enough. In one of the many articles The Politico ran about the episode the following observation was made by reporters Gordon Lubold and Carol E. Lee:

McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department. And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.

Now this seemed to several observers—and I was one—a reveal. Think about what the Politico is saying: an experienced beat reporter is less of a risk for a powerful figure like McChrystal because an experienced beat reporter would probably not want to “burn bridges” with key sources by telling the world what happens when those sources let their guard down. Read on...