The fallout over the Rolling Stone article about General Stanley McChrystal continued over the weekend. But now the focus has turned on the Rolling Stone reporter himself. On Saturday the Washington Post published an article which called into question whether the reporter, Michael Hastings, had published material which was not on the record.
On Sunday's edition of CNN's "Reliable Sources" CBS correspondent Lara Logan questioned Hastings' professionalism.
"That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do."
Wow. Did Hastings break the agreement he had with McChrystal's staff about what he could and could not report? Was it his duty to report on what he was hearing when those comments had a direct effect on the management of the war? Frank Rich seems to be coming down on the side of Rolling Stone: The 36 Hours That Shook Washington. What do you think?