I will show you my hand from the beginning so that there are no surprises: people are getting dumber.
In the near future I doubt that there will be many people who would be able to describe the significance behind the names Michael Hastings or Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Well, maybe I should be a little more fair than that; I don't believe many people in Canada will remember these names. The United States may be a different story.
In a nut shell what happened
was that a war journalist by the name of Michael Hastings wrote an article about General Stanley McChrsystal (who was overseeing the American offensive in Afghanistan at the time of the article) for Rolling Stone magazine (RS issue 1108/1109, July 8-22, 2010 OR better known as the issue featuring a scantily clad Lady Gaga toting 2 M16s). (Side note: the article is worth the read) When the article was published many inside of the White House didn't like what had been said by Gen. McChrystal, so he was fired. Like I said: nut shell version.What impresses me most about this story is the power of the press. (Notice I wrote 'press' and not media. Yes, press is a part of the media, but I typically find that there is actual journalistic integrity behind what the press says (no, not all of it) as opposed to the larger media, which can be anything from the most honest journalists' magnum opus to any "celebrity's" opinion.) I can't help but think if this same story had been reported in the same medium 30 years ago it would have been a much bigger deal than it is now. People may cite that perhaps we are just so accustomed to corruption and decay amongst leaders that this is no longer new, but I can't help but feel it is our lack of being informed about serious, ground-shaking political issues. We have become a society less interested in the reality of the world around us and more interested in the "reality" of the Hollywood showcase.
I believe that there has been no print news article since "Watergate" to have the ramifications that Rolling Stone's "The Runaway General" has had. Think about it: one journalist wrote what he saw regarding the man who is running the conflict in Afghanistan and he gets canned (which will in turn impact all those in Afghanistan). AND THEN we hear next to nothing other than "Gen. McChrystal got canned"...this isn't some private who peed on an electric fence THIS IS A GENERAL RUNNING A WAR!!!
Granted "Watergate" was a much bigger deal than Gen. McChrystal getting canned ever will be (Nixon was the PRESIDENT in a massive scandal) and the names Nixon, Watergate, Woodward, Bernstein and Deepthroath will forever go down in history. For the impact that this one article has had on the longest armed conflict in recent history I can't help but feel that the names Hastings and McChrystal will soon be long since forgotten; if nothing else a definite blow to the journalistic world.
(As an aside I would like to add in Rolling Stone's follow up issue (RS 1110, August 5, 2010) featured an editorial with a response to all of the goings on regarding the article. And, as far as my understanding goes, at no point did any of Gen. McChrystal's staff say anything against the article, deny what had been said, or jockey for political sanctuary from the fallout; they stood behind what had been written regardless of the repercussions. As far as journalistic integrity I give a thumbs up, as far as integrity for the General's staff, two thumbs up, even if they didn't show the same integrity towards some politicians.)
Back to my original point: I can't help but think with the proliferation of technology and the Internet that we are quickly becoming a people with very little memory for history, or use for the serious issues that surround us.
I know I said that I had 2 incidents in the last week that ticked me off the next one will have to wait for my next blog.
...Hence my self-loathing.
