Taibbi weighs in

After CBS’s Lara Logan slammed Rolling Stone’s Michael Hastings for not hiding from the public much of what he saw, Matt Taibbi fought back.

Lara Logan, come on down! You’re the next guest on Hysterical Backstabbing Jealous Hackfest 2010!

I thought I’d seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Times column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” program, agreeing that the Rolling Stone reporter violated an “unspoken agreement” that journalists are not supposed to “embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter.”

Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn’t mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan.

Taibbi is pretty much right. The day we find a reporter working in his subject’s best interest is the day he becomes irrelevant. Let me rephrase that: … is the day he should become irrelevant. Anyone who believes journalism is a game of give-and-take between covering for your subject and reporting for the public should stick to the sidelines. If someone makes a substantial comment in front of a reporter–in this case much more than salty insults and banter–it is fair game for reporting. Just because there was swearing doesn’t mean it was mere banter. Besides, we trust reporters to tell us what they find out, not what will get the reporter more jobs covering the military. As Taibbi lays out, the Pentagon has one of the biggest PR budgets on earth. They don’t need reporters to lie for them.

If you haven’t actually read the Rolling Stone article on former Gen. McChrystal, please do. I was surprised McChrystal got canned over it.

Also, Taibbi gains points for not laying into Logan’s personal dilemma on this particular issue.

Tags: journalism, Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone