When the journalist Michael Hastings died in Los Angeles in June at the age of 33, mainstream journalism did not afford his memory much respect. His widow, Elise Jordan, complained to The New York Times about the characterization of his life’s work in the paper’s short, to-the-point obituary. But the factors that made Hastings unlauded by the mainstream were what made him so good at his job. He was the opposite of an ‘access journalist.’ Yes, he got access to powerful people, but then he used it, ruthlessly, not to repay the favor of having been granted that access, but to tell stories that powerful people did not want told. He was resented and distrusted — even in death, it seems — because of the slashing, pitiless nature of his good and important work.
From Rachel Maddow’s review of ‘Breach of Trust,’ by Andrew J. Bacevich – NYTimes.com
(thx Misha)
Maddow is my hero.
(via femme-esq)
The whole review of Bacevich’s book by Maddow is a must read. The very next paragraph is:
Bacevich does not write crisply and with snark the way Hastings did. In his late 60s, he isn’t a daring, dashing, liberal magazine journalist; he’s a crusty conservative Catholic professor who now teaches at Boston University. But he is cut from the same cloth. He will never be mainstream. When he writes about America and our military, though, he does it in a manner that makes you wonder how anyone covering politics can write about anything else.
Thoughts?