Yesterday in one of Politico’s write-ups of the furor that ensued as it became known that damaging quotes from General Stanley McChrystal and his staff would appear in an article by Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone, the following paragraphs appeared:Gosh, I wonder why they did that? (They aren't saying, according to CJR.)McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department.And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.
And in the version of that article live on the site today, what’s happened to the material on Hastings’s favorable position to report damaging remarks: poof!