That Washington
What He Said. (Way Better Than Me.)
Last week, coloring a little outside the Cola lines, I filed a homage to Rolling Stone
magazine.
It was long overdue. Privately, I've been giving them a Pulitzer every two weeks for the last year or so, mostly thanks to Matt Taibbi's well-reported indictments of President Obama's Wall Street agenda, but also because of their perceptive reporting about Afghanistan.
A PubliCola fan told me he felt like my post came from "Josh's krazy korner." But then— when he came across Frank Rich's opinion piece in Sunday's New York Times saying the same thing I'd said (much better than I said it)—he saw the light.
Here's Frank Rich:
It was long overdue. Privately, I've been giving them a Pulitzer every two weeks for the last year or so, mostly thanks to Matt Taibbi's well-reported indictments of President Obama's Wall Street agenda, but also because of their perceptive reporting about Afghanistan.
A PubliCola fan told me he felt like my post came from "Josh's krazy korner." But then— when he came across Frank Rich's opinion piece in Sunday's New York Times saying the same thing I'd said (much better than I said it)—he saw the light.
Here's Frank Rich:
There were few laughs in the 36 hours of tumult, but Jon Stewart captured them with a montage of cable-news talking heads expressing repeated shock that an interloper from a rock ’n’ roll magazine could gain access to the war command and induce it to speak with self-immolating candor. Politico theorized that Hastings had pulled off his impertinent coup because he was a freelance journalist rather than a beat reporter, and so could risk “burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.”
That sentence was edited out of the article — in a routine updating, said Politico — after the 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. In any event, Politico had the big picture right. 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.
Symbolically enough, Hastings was reporting his McChrystal story abroad just as Beltway media heavies and their most bold-faced subjects were dressing up for the annual White House correspondents’ dinner. Rolling Stone has never bought a table or thrown an afterparty for that bacchanal, and it has not even had a Washington bureau since the mid-1970s. Yet the magazine has not only chronicled the McChrystal implosion — and relentlessly tracked the administration’s connections to the “vampire squid” of Goldman Sachs — but has also exposed the shoddy management of the Obama Interior Department. As it happens, the issue of Rolling Stone with the Hastings story also contains a second installment of Tim Dickinson’s devastating dissection of the Ken Salazar cohort, this time detailing how its lax regulation could soon lead to an even uglier repeat of the Gulf of Mexico fiasco when BP and Shell commence offshore drilling in the Arctic Ocean.