Media Reporting: Sensationalism v. Patriotism

In light of the political/military fiasco that the Rolling Stone article has brought about in regard to the untimely removal of Gen. Stan McChrystal from his Afghanistan command, one can’t help but wonder whether members of the press can appreciate the distinctions between sensationalism and patriotism. For in this case, obviously, the reporter chose to engage in sensationalism. If this is not clear to the reporter and his editors, David Brooks puts things in perspective in this New York Times article, “The Culture of Exposure,” where he argues that off-the-record trash talk, especially in Washington DC, happens to everyone:

Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.

The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. . . McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched.

. . . By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.

The media in the US have grown too big for their breeches. We ordinary readers would simply like to read objective and factual reporting. That is the true vocation of good journalism, anyway – to treat its readers to objective and professional reporting. In areas of national security where the fate of the republic hangs in the balance, we expect them to exercise some prudence and common sense. If this reporter gets the big picture, publicly airing locker- room, gung-ho talk among members of the military is not prudent. It is also not patriotic. It is sensationalism.