At least the New York Times‘ obituary of John Hess used a handsome photo of him.
When a journalist dies, how can you tell if they’ve had a career that’s upheld the proudest journalistic traditions of challenging the powerful and fearlessly exposing the truth?
The New York Times will attempt to piss on that career in the journalist’s obituary.
The Paper of Record did that with John Hess, himself a Times veteran and one of the paper’s most incisive critics. When he died (Extra!, 3–4/05), the Times (1/22/05) called him “cranky,” “curmudgeonly” and “grudging”—not to mention bungling his birthplace (The Bronx, not Salt Lake City) and alma mater (City College, not the University of Utah). John, who actually worked on the paper’s obituary desk, would have just said it proved his point.
Then in its obituary for Barbara Seaman, the groundbreaking critic of corporate media health coverage (Extra!, 3–4/08), the Times (3/1/08) offered this as its only sustained evaluation of her work—a quote from a Washington Post book review (10/5/03):
Seaman is a conspiracy theorist by temperament and training. In her presentation, every drug company is working against the interests of its patients, and every journalist who fails to question this or that bad study has probably been bought off.
Here’s a theory for you: Every journalist who quotes hyperbolic attacks on a colleague who can no longer defend herself is most likely suffering from a bad conscience.
Michael Hastings
So Michael Hastings is in excellent company when his New York Times obituary (6/19/13) went out of its way to discredit the reporter’s best-known story:
An inquiry into the article by the Defense Department inspector general the next year found “insufficient” evidence of wrongdoing by the general, his military aides and civilian advisers.
The inspector general’s report also questioned the accuracy of some aspects of the article, which was repeatedly defended by Mr. Hastings and Rolling Stone.
First of all, the inspector general’s report found that “the evidence was insufficient to substantiate a violation of applicable DoD standards”—meaning that after talking to various people associated with the events described in the article, the IG maintained there wasn’t enough evidence to bring disciplinary action against anyone under the military’s rule. This is entirely different from saying that a journalist failed to provide sufficient evidence for an article’s charges, and of completely dubious relevance to a post-mortem evaluation of that journalist’s career.
The report did claim that “not all of the events at issue occurred as reported in the article”—but this was immediately followed by the basis for this judgment: “In some instances, we found no witness who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported.” In other words, the people who were quoted saying things that might get them kicked out of the service denied saying them, and the officers they were working or partying with backed them up. (The report notes in passing that the Army inspector general—as opposed to the Pentagon IG—had found that the “preponderance of the evidence indicated” that the derogatory remarks quoted by Hastings had in fact been said.)
The link in the Times obituary for Hastings goes back to the paper’s 2011 coverage (4/19/11) of the inspector general’s report, which was headlined “Pentagon Inquiry Into Article Clears McChrystal and Aides.” That report was by Thom Shanker, with his colleague Elisabeth Bumiller “contribut[ing] reporting.” Bumiller famously said that at the New York Times, “you can’t just say the president is lying.” Or high-ranking military officers, either, apparently.
Hastings’ widow, Elise Jordan, understandably took exception to the Times‘ efforts to denigrate her husband’s career (Huffington Post, 6/19/13). She pointed out in a letter, among other things, that many of the derogatory remarks quoted in the article were made on tape—but that Hastings, like a self-respecting journalist, declined to turn over his tapes and notes to a government inquiry. Times obituaries editor Bill McDonald responded that “it’s not the Times that is questioning the article’s accuracy; it was the Defense Department. We’re simply reporting what it publicly said.”
If I live long enough to write the New York Times‘ obituary—which I might—I’m going to include this:
The Newspaper of Record recorded a century of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind, generally as a faithful voice of the Eastern establishment. It supported all its wars, hot and cold. It supported witchhunts during and after World War I and temporized with the one after World War II; it fudged the menace of Hitlerism and played down the Holocaust…. At the cutting edge of major events, it could be found against women’s suffrage, against unionism (always), against minimum wages and national health insurance…. Like the rest of the business establishment, it preferred corrupt politicians to liberal reformers.
Now, that’s not me saying that—that’s John Hess. But he was right.
Hell hath no fury
Like The Gray Lady scorned
Excellent breakdown of the NYT’s smear.
Fair: “NYT Pays Tribute to Hastings by Attacking Him After Death”
Since when is an obituary supposed to be about “paying tribute”?
The corporate newsmedia no longer knows how to cover the news
so they must pretend that whistleblowers and those who question those in power are wrong.
This story would have been better journalism had it summarized what Hasting’s story at issue was about.
I now see that FAIR had an earlier post describing Hastings’s story. For those who missed it, see https://fair.org/blog/2013/06/19/michael-hastings-bridge-burning-journalist-1980-2013/
“… it was the Defense Department. We’re simply reporting what it publicly said.”
Not just stenography, but stenography in the service of smearing a real journalist after his tragic, early death. Nice.
“The link in the Times obituary for Hastings goes back to the paper’s 2011 coverage (4/19/11) of the inspector general’s report … That report was by Thom Shanker…”
In his April 2011 piece, “Pentagon Inquiry Into Article Clears McChrystal and Aides,” the Pentagon’s New York Time reporter Thom Shanker wrote that the DoD investigation had “found no proof of wrongdoing by the general, his military aides and his civilian advisers”
and “were unable to confirm the events as reported in the June 2010 article in “Rolling Stone” and “challenged the accuracy of the profile of General McChrystal” written by Michael Hastings.
In his 2012 book “The Operators” Michael Hastings addressed those results: ”The investigation reads comically. It is the last whitewash of McChrystal’s military career. … Pentagon officials would privately tell journalists that the intent of the investigation wasn’t even to find wrongdoing; it was to “damage” my credibility.”
I’ll miss Michael’s honest, no BS reporting that is sadly lacking among the stenographic mainstream press. In an interview he was asked the question: “are there individual reporters whom you want to call out publicly for their sort of following the Pentagon line and not doing their job?” He replied, “Yeah. I saw a pretty egregious example with the New York Times Pentagon correspondent [Thom Shanker] who literally just published the Pentagon spokesperson’s anonymous quotes when he was reporting on my stories. And he didn’t bother to call Rolling Stone for a comment, of course, because, well, he’s got the official line from the Pentagon.”
It’s worth noting that Shanker also previously whitewashed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s key role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s 2004 friendly-fire death in Afghanistan. In May 2009, President Obama nominated McChrystal to be his new commander of the Afghan War. Conveniently, just before McChrystal’s June 2009 Senate confirmation, the NYT’s published Thom Shanker’s piece, “Nomination of U.S. Afghan Commander Revives Questions in Tillman Case” supposedly “exonerating” McChrystal of all ‘wrongdoing.” However, although Shanker’s article was full of official “facts,” he ignored clear evidence of McChrystal‘s central role in the cover-up [for details, see the posts “”Something to Die For,” “the [Untold] Tillman Story,” and “Lies Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” at the Feral Firefighter blog].
The evening after his Senate confirmation, McChrystal gave Shanker & Eric Schmitt a private tour of his new Pentagon HQ! Isn’t “access” grand! I didn’t come away from my personal experience with Thom Shanker & the NYT with any confidence in our “watchdog” media. As Hastings said, “they call it the Pentagon Press Corps, right? And you sort of think, oh, well it means the people who kind of watch over the Pentagon and perform the media’s watchdog function, but no, it’s an extension of the Pentagon.”
Once again, with their obituary of Michael Hastings (as with their coverage of the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman story) the NYT’s reporting has lacked journalistic integrity (“it was the Defense Department. We’re simply reporting what it publicly said”). So, instead of a search for the truth, the NYT’s has one again displayed its stenographic ability to parrot the official government position “borne out by facts, if not the truth.” Not just stenography, but stenography in the service of smearing a real journalist after his tragic, early death!
McChrystal ended his 2013 memoir [see the post “Never Shall I Fail My Comrades” at the Feral Firefighter blog] with a brief, disingenuous discussion of the “Rolling Stone” profile which led to his firing by President Obama. Although McChrystal claims he “took full responsibility” he blamed Michael Hastings for his supposed lack of fairness and accuracy. However, it’s worth noting McChrystal has repeatedly refused to confirm or deny the accuracy of Hasting’s quotes. Why not? Because he knows Hasting’s has many of the quotes on tape.
I hope that Elise Jordan decides to publish Michael Hasting’s transcripts of his interviews with “Team America” & General McChrystal (and release the audiotapes). Since the NYT has persisted in questioning Michael’s credibility even in their obituary, why doesn’t Elise Jordan release the tapes to clear Michael’s journalistic reputation? (and stick it to McChrystal and the NYT!)
Thanks to Lydia Maniatis. I shamelessly stole your quote and added it to my post.
dont diss witches
@UrbanAchievr
Since when is an obituary supposed to be about “paying tribute”?
All obituaries are about paying tribute to the deceased. Or haven’t you read one before?
Thanks for all that, Guy Montag.
To, “Not speak ill of the dead?” Newspapers do, but I’ve never heard anyone at an actual funeral do this. ( except for the westboro baptist Church) It is disappointing that some news groups only trash the messengers. Some, do deserve to be trashed, like those newsmakers with absolute power that ARE corrupted absolutely. When Mr. Cheney dies, I wonder what the NY Times will write?
Postcript: On June 22nd the NYT public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote a column critical of the NYT Michael Hasting’s obituary.
Margaret Sullivan noted the references to the Pentagon’s report suggest “a debunking of the “Rolling Stone” article’s conclusions” and discredit Hastings’ work. But she wrote that “the obituary…is not factually inaccurate.” What the hell does that mean? (If you take out the double-negative, she’s saying the obituary is “factually accurate”).
She seems to agree with the NYT obituary editor McDonald that “it’s not The Times that is questioning the article’s accuracy; it was the Defense Department. We’re simply reporting what it publicly said.” So, if the obituary repeats/reports the Pentagon’s lies, that’s OK with her because it’s technically true the Pentagon said it?
“As far as I can tell.” How much fact-checking did she do? Why didn’t she do sufficient fact-checking to discover which side has more credible evidence and logic to support its case? [for links to source material, see the new post “More NYT’s Lies Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” at the Feral Firefighter blog]. Did she read the DoD’s six-page report whitewash and compare it to Hasting’s detailed account in his book “The Operators”? (I’ve read both and the report is a complete joke). Or ask Elise Jordan to take a look at Hasting’s transcripts/tapes to verify the facts for herself? Or try to get Gen. McChrystal or any of his staff to actually go on the record to dispute the accuracy of the profile?
Unfortunately, Sullivan’s column dodged the central issue of the obituary controversy that concerned Michael Hasting’s widow Elise Jordan: the truthfulness of his “Rolling Stone” profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Sullivan’s column failed to properly investigate and determine where the truth of the matter actually lies (although she did point out the pettiness of an editor who took out the last paragraph of the obituary (in original on-line edition) praising Hastings because of “space reasons.”
I enjoy, lead to I discovered exactly what I used to be looking for.
You’ve ended my 4 day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye
You see this stuff happening all the time. Hopefully the guy is at peace.