When a bombshell profile comes out, it's not uncommon for the subject to complain about being quoted out of context or when supposedly off the record. But there was no such pushback from Stanley McChrystal, or those close to him, after Rolling Stone published the story that effectively ended his tenure as commander in Afghanistan. 

McChrystal still hasn't spoken publicly, but the Washington Post now reports that his Afghan war command conducted its own review and believes the general was "betrayed" by freelance journalist Michael Hastings.

A senior military official told the Post's Karen DeYoung that "sessions were off-the-record and intended to give" Hastings perspective on how the team operated. The official, who isn't willing to speak on the record, said there was no evidence that the "salacious political quotes" in Hastings' profile were made during on-the-record interviews.

Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates has been making the media rounds this week, and has consistently said that Hastings did not use material from off-the-record conversations.

"In every case in this story, there were multiple times in which there were express requests for off-the-record and background or not-for-attribution, and we abided in every instance," Bates told the Post. 

Bates has also said this week that Rolling Stone fact-checked the story, which the paper confirms. The Post obtained a list of 30 questions that a Rolling Stone fact-checker sent to McChrystal media adviser Duncan Boothby and claims that it "contained no hint of what became of the controversial portions of the story."

The fact-checker asked whether "McChrystal's staff jokingly refer to themselves as Team America," to which Boothby said "not really." Still, Hastings wrote that they "jokingly refer to themselves as Team America," which they presumably did in his presence.

Boothby was also asked if McChrystal voted for Obama, which Hastings reported in the piece. Boothby, according to the Post, wasn't too pleased with the question, writing back: "IMPORTANT -- PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS -- THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNRELATED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE."

Even though Boothby — who lost his job over allowing access to Rolling Stone — didn't want that detail published, he never said it wasn't accurate. And if McChrystal said it on the record, then Hastings is within his rights to report it. 

But DeYoung questions the magazine's fact-checking process, writing: "Why this remark, but not other controversial utterances, were included in the fact-checker's questions was unclear."

Actually, it seems pretty clear. McChrystal stated a fact (he voted for Obama) and the fact-checker asked if that happened (that McChrystal voted or Obama). Typically, magazine fact-checkers do not read back quotes to story subjects verbatim, but may ask about a factual issue in a quote. So, for instance, if a McChrystal aide expressed an opinion on background to Hastings, it's unlikely the fact-checker would read back that opinionated quote. 

Indeed, Bates told the paper that it's not Rolling Stone's policy to give public figures a chance to take back something they said on the record: "We don't go back to the sources and say, 'Hey, did you really say that?'"

— Michael Calderone is the media writer for Yahoo! News.

Article: HERE

David Brooks occupies a lofty perch on the op-ed page of the New York Times, one that permits the columnist to get inside the corridors of Washington power. He's got enough pull in the White House to reference President Obama as a senior background source.

Brooks wrote Friday about how "the most interesting part of my job is [getting] to observe powerful people at close quarters." There, he's heard some "off-the-record trash talk," from senators to White House officials, he writes, while noting that such venting is part of life among Washington's elite. Essentially, it's not fit for print.  

So Brooks takes issue with Michael Hastings, the freelance reporter who included some on-the-record — and "on background," or not-for-attribution — griping in his blockbuster Rolling Stone profile that led to the ouster of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. 

"By putting [McChrystal's] kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority," Brooks wrote. "He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him."

Hastings, however, doesn't think it's fair to blame him for accurately reporting on the tension between McChrystal's circle and the civilian chain of command, and came out firing on Twitter Friday morning.

He wrote the following tweet: "david brooks to young reporters: don't report what you see or hear, or you might upset the powerful." And another: "question for david brooks: does he really think WH and McC had good relationships? signs point to lack of listening to kvetching!" Here's one more: "question 2 to mr. brooks: how much time has he spent listening to the troops kvetch in a warzone? just askin'."

Hastings, who was in Afghanistan earlier this week, and is currently traveling, told Yahoo! News why he took to Twitter to defend himself against the Times columnist.

"Hard not to respond to this without going back to an old saying. I'm paraphrasing: Reporting is what someone somewhere doesn't want known," Hastings wrote. "Everything else is advertising."

"That's more or less how I feel," Hastings continued. "I find it very strange that the response from a few of the pundits has been: Journalists should do more to protect the powerful. Seems to me they're already pretty well protected for the most part."

Brooks did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Hastings' response.

— Michael Calderone is the media writer for Yahoo! News.