I found this NPR blog post interesting.
As we've seen in today's news and countless other times throughout history, a story can have massive political ramifications...but what is less immediately apparent is the effect this has on journalists, many of whom now fear that they will have LESS access to sensitive areas like the military moving forward. Reporters have to walk a fine line in times of war without the military being especially afraid of a PR disaster like this one occurring again. Do you guys think that the author of the Rolling Stone piece should have done anything differently, given that he must have known that his piece would make huge waves in Washington? Theoretically he was just doing his job, and doing it well, uncovering an interesting story about the highest in command...but what about the journalists who are left to suffer the consequences? Should we see this as just a commonplace issue that journalists have to deal with in their line of work?
I actually just finished the Rolling Stone article and I confess to having the same question as I read. I am also on the fence.
ReplyDeleteAs the "seekers of truth" journalists are meant to be, I think the author (blanking on his name) met this crucial obligation. However, I am not convinced that writing the unadulterated truth in this case should have superceded another important facet of journalism: a commitment to to safeguard intelligence that could be used to undermine this country's safety - by revealing a rift between several of the people most responsible for the fate of Afghani and, ultimately, American lives.
The piece nearly borders on boastfulness at the level of access the author had in researching it.