My general rule is to not speak ill of the recently departed unless they have done some high level evil or noteworthy idiocy. When it comes to the famous it's not like there will be any shortage of opinions anyway. There are exceptions of course, and I'm going to make one here regarding the death of writer Michael Hastings last week. I'm somewhat astonished at how quickly many people on the right, some of whom I've respected, grabbed onto conspiracy theories about Hastings' car accident. I also have to push back against some of the effusive praise sent Hastings way the last week, because whatever his talents as a writer, he was a shining example of the rotten state of journalism today.
Whatever my opinion of his work, I think it's terribly sad to see someone taken so early in life. My condolences to his family and friends. He was, however, a public and controversial figure and criticism, even in death, goes with the territory.
Hastings died in a single-car accident in Los Angeles a week ago yesterday. Immediately conspiracy theories popped up that he was whacked by the government. I expect such nonsense from the likes of batshit-crazy Alex Jones, but to see so many conservative pundits and readers quickly embrace them also kind of took me aback. All sorts of armchair mechanics took to the internet to declare the accident and ensuing fire as highly suspicious. The fact that the engine of the vehicle was hurtled some distance from the car was taken as evidence that a bomb was used. And on and on.
Look, Occam's razor applies here. It was 4:20 in the morning and witnesses said the vehicle came zooming out of Hollywood at a very high rate of speed, running red lights as it went. Though Hastings had come clean, he did have a history of chemical abuse. The accident and toxicology reports have not been released, but even if no drugs or alcohol were involved, everybody knows that sort of speed on a residential street(even four lanes) is a killer. As for the fire and the engine, take a look at this photo. Clearly there is more than front end damage, so it seems likely the vehicle careened or rolled before striking the tree.
If anyone can show me evidence that it was a hit, and I mean real evidence instead of dark mumblings, I'm willing to listen.
Hastings was in Iraq in 2006-2007, though I don't recall his work specifically. I despised all of the MSM reporters in Iraq at that time for their "never publish good news" reporting, even when good news was handed to them on a platter. If he differentiated himself from the rest of the schmucks reporting from Baghdad I don't remember it.
Hastings really first popped on my radar in 2008 when I read this GQ essay he wrote on covering the 2008 election. Some have called it a refreshingly honest take on covering the campaign trail, but it reads to me like the jaundiced ramblings of a bored narcissist. First his unconcealed contempt for anything Republican, then his unabashed desire to see Obama triumph over Clinton on the Democratic side.
Then came the famous piece in Rolling Stone that ended the career of US Army General McChrystal in 2010. It immediately smelled like a hatchet job to me and it still stinks that way today. Lots of innuendo and anonymous quotes and little to no corroboration. It was a sly piece of work though. Within hours people were quoting McChrystal as saying things he didn't say and accusing him and his staff of disrespecting the president and vice president in ways that could be court martial offenses. Within days, President "under the bus" had his resignation. Hastings and Rolling Stone stood by their story, but two Inspector General investigations cleared McChrystal and his staff of any wrongdoing and failed to corroborate the most damning parts of the story.
Finally, Neo-Neocon points us to an excerpt from a book Hastings wrote on the 2012 Obama campaign. The money quote for me is this description of Obama joining the reporters covering him for a drink:
“The behavior of the assembled press corps was telling. Everyone, myself included, swooned. Swooned! Head over heels. One or two might have even lost their minds,” Hastings writes, as each reporter had a chance to speak personally with the president. “We were all, on some level, deeply obsessed with Obama, crushing hard, still a little love there. This was nerd heaven, a politico’s paradise, the subject himself moving among us — shaking our hands, slapping our shoulders!”
Points for some sort of honesty. I suppose.
"Fearless" is a word being used to describe Hastings, but it seems to me that sycophancy and placing his own personal political beliefs above principle is anything but fearless. Hastings was of the belief that since nobody can truly be objective you might as well roll with it. Well, I think that's the easy way out. The lazy way out. The coward's way out.
Hastings was one of a number of young writers today who seem to feel that it's their job to manipulate their readers, not inform them. Certain in their righteousness, they have no qualms about hiding information that doesn't fit their chosen narrative from their readers. Instead of speaking truth to power, they have become servants of the powerful, their willing propagandists.
Call me old school, but fearless means challenging the powerful, not kissing their ass. It means challenging one's own prejudices and comfort zones, not slipping into lazy caricatures of the subjects you're supposed to cover. There may be some pieces out there that Hastings wrote that truly are fearless, but I'm not familiar with them and I don't believe they compare to the vast majority of his work.
So there you have it. I hate to rag on him after his tragic death, but I think it's important for those of us who value journalism as a way to inform the public to push back against those who would use journalism to control the public.
Recent Comments