I'm normally a pretty big supporter of Cenk but this time I have to disagree with him. IMO he is taking her common sense explanations and magnifying them into some kind of protection of the military.

What I get from her explanations is that good reporters use their discretion when printing things that people in the military say. Soldiers often say things that are not politically correct, especially when they are in a place like Afghanistan.

In my view, she is simply saying that printing everything that they say, regardless of how far up the chain they are, is irresponsible and in bad faith. Respected war corespondents get close to, and gain the trust of, the soldiers the work with and for them to print things that were said behind closed doors violates that trust and violates the traditional convention of being "off the record".

Cenk seems to think that using one's discretion when it comes to printing private statements is somehow protecting the big bad thing called the military.

I was listening to NPR a couple of days ago. There was a reporter who had reported on the DOD for a while talking about this issue. You can basically read Skeeve's response to get the gist of what the reporter said. He talked about the main reason this happened is that the guy from the Rolling Stones was there for one story. The Rolling Stones reporter didn't care if he burned all his sources because he didn't need any information beyond the one story. I can almost guarantee that the same Rolling Stones reporter treats groups that he frequently reports on different. The reporter on NPR also talked about the trust that is built up that allowed him to be at off-the-record meetings where he was really able to gain some perspective on situations beyond the scenes.

Being "embedded" with an organization will always call for some give and take. Or you can act like the Rolling Stones reporter - get in, report on some improper comments and be forever shut out of that organization forever.

Not accusing Cenk of plagiarism or anything like that, but Matt Taibbi made this point first, and with more swearing.

I just caught the interview with John Pilger at Democracy Now! and Amy indicated that Rolling Stone said that there was plenty they didn't print. Remember that Hastings double checked with the general that those were indeed his comments in his piece, and Rolling Stone checked again themselves. McChrystal knew what he was doing, or at least thought Hastings would report it just like all the other press - in a positive light.

>> ^NetRunner:

Not accusing Cenk of plagiarism or anything like that, but Matt Taibbi made this point first, and with more swearing.


It's not up on YouTube yet, but TYT had an interview today with Matt Taibbi regarding that very article. Watch this space.

Edit: Also Taibbi only beat him by about two hours, this clip I posted is from their show on the 28th.

When the purpose of your story is to delve into the personalities, thoughts & attitudes of Military "Top Brass..

How is withholding relevant statements because they might be damaging NOT protecting the military?

Good faith & not snitching is more important to you than truth and actuality?

You would rather read a sugar-coated article about how old men with glorified scout badges are "working so hard to end this war"?

About how they need just a few thousand more troops [human ammo] from other countries?


>> ^Skeeve:


Cenk seems to think that using one's discretion when it comes to printing private statements is somehow protecting the big bad thing called the military.

>> ^BoneyD:

I just caught the interview with John Pilger at Democracy Now! and Amy indicated that Rolling Stone said that there was plenty they didn't print. Remember that Hastings double checked with the general that those were indeed his comments in his piece, and Rolling Stone checked again themselves. McChrystal knew what he was doing, or at least thought Hastings would report it just like all the other press - in a positive light.


The general's staff denies this. They say the facts that were checked were not related to the controversial comments. They provided the email from Rolling Stone, and if the email is genuine I agree with them.

But.. she's hot??

you're not fucken reporters, you're pathetic.

I've personally heard high-ranking officers make comments about Afghanistan that would land them in the news papers. Do I write a news article blasting them? No, because I know that they were just letting off steam and they expected those around them to sympathize with them but not take it as a serious comment on the state of the war.

I see three options available for a reporter in this situation; ignore the comments and write the glowing reviews Cenk is talking about, ignore the comments and write a balanced article like Lara is talking about, or shit all over people who trusted you and write what they said in confidence just so you can write a controversial, military-blasting article.

I think people should stay somewhere in the middle.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

When the purpose of your story is to delve into the personalities, thoughts & attitudes of Military "Top Brass..
How is withholding relevant statements because they might be damaging NOT protecting the military?
Good faith & not snitching is more important to you than truth and actuality?
You would rather read a sugar-coated article about how old men with glorified scout badges are "working so hard to end this war"?
About how they need just a few thousand more troops [human ammo] from other countries?

>> ^Skeeve:

Cenk seems to think that using one's discretion when it comes to printing private statements is somehow protecting the big bad thing called the military.

If your commanding officer says "At ease" and you tell him to go fuck himself, I doubt he's going to cut you any slack.

"...when you're living with them and sleeping with them..."

She give a whole new meaning to the term, "embedded journalist."

Here's their interview with Matt Taibbi

It's a joke to even have this conversation.

Any decent reporter with journalistic integrity will report the full truth no matter what is said by whomever said it.

A journalists job isn't to be nice, or secure further interviews, or gain the "trust" of their subjects. Journalists don't work for the people they cover, they work for the public at large who needs to know shit.

@Skeeve: you're not a journalist doing a story on high-ranking officers are you? If not, then your point is moot.

@volumptuous You think this is about journalistic integrity? I'm relieved to hear there is someone who actually believes in that still because I haven't seen any of that in years.

As for a reporter with journalistic integrity reporting "the full truth no matter what is said by whomever said it", that kills people, at home and at war. Embedded journalists hear a lot of stuff that would get troops and civilians killed if they reported it. These reporters have to use their discretion and follow guidelines when it comes to what they can and can not publish. Unless you want all the soldiers with an embedded reporter dead then they have to hold back on a lot of what they hear.

The same goes for reporters working with police. They often have to hold back the "full truth" to help police catch a suspect or to protect the victims.

I'm done with this discussion, I've said my part. While the public at large does "need to know shit", there needs to be some discretion in what they print. The reporter's lack of discretion destroyed the career of the man leading troops in a war zone - next time he might kill more than a career.

I'm with gwiz665 on this. Her body of work is spectacular.

Is this the same General McChrystal who covered up the Pat Tillman murder?

And there are people standing up for that worm?

Only in America.

>> ^Skeeve:

The reporter's lack of discretion destroyed the career of the man leading troops in a war zone - next time he might kill more than a career.


You still make a poor argument for two reasons:

1- No battle plans or secret locations were revealed.
All that was printed was what McChrystal and his men really thought about the new administration.

Explain how that jeopardizes the lives of troops.

2- McChrystal was in charge/responsible for the cover up of Pat Tillman.

Your points are moot because, as I said, troops are ammunition.

They are going to be destroyed just like bullets, tanks or any other weapon. That's what they signed up for.

So stop crying about how "this might get our troops killed."

Like their lives are more important than the Pashtun civilians they murder with predator drones from an air-conditioned warehouse in Nevada.