Slate says that interview subjects should not sit for features

As for the Slate piece, it doesn't chide Hastings for doing anything a reporter isn't expected to do. It chides the McChrystal for allowing access to such an extent for little or no gain. And for doing dumb things in the presence of the press. And I think that's fair.

Unless the situation demands it, it's an ethically sound practice to identify yourself as a journalist before you document interview-setting information. We do this so the subject can present himself or herself in the manner they wish to present. If that's honest, all the better.

The Slate piece doesn't say that Hastings shouldn't have written what he did. It says that a U.S. general should have better judgment about these things.

 

Dang you beat me to it.

 

One thing: the reporter has said that he got all the so-called "inflammatory" stuff within the first 24 hours or so of meeting the general, so it wasn't like he established a deep relationship or that trust had built up.

I have no knowledge of anything, but it sounds to me like McChrystal was used to having his indiscretions in front of reporters never quite see print.

 

Good piece--I generally agree. I still don't quite understand why McChrystal would allow himself to be profiled. I hope there is a tell all book down the road that will go over all of this mess.