Music magazine covers politics, world affairs better than serious publications

An article in Rolling Stone last week garnered a lot of attention. So much attention in fact it led to the resignation of the general in charge of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.
Many people were surprised a magazine known more for its music coverage than its world affairs coverage would have the ability to publish an article that could lead to the downfall of such a high-ranking official, let alone one that would cause President Barack Obama to react.
Even more surprising to many was the fact the unabashed liberal-leaning publication would put anything in it criticizing a president it heavily supported in 2008.
I’d be surprised, too, if I was only a casual reader of the magazine. As it is, though, I’ve read every article in it, front cover to back, for the last 10 years, happily devouring every word about every subject it’s addressed, even the subjects I had little to no interest in knowing more about.
That’s because the editors at Rolling Stone have an uncanny knack for helping their writers make every subject interesting, and they’re not afraid to tackle anything, even supposedly taboo subjects like the president’s handling of the war on terror.
It started going after Obama about six months ago. In an editorial the magazine’s editor and founder, Jann Wenner, said the magazine still supports the president and his beliefs, but it’s been disappointed by much of Obama’s White House record.
Since then it has published articles hammering Obama on finance reform, global-warming reform and most recently, before the big one, his handling of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Nearly every issue of the bi-monthly magazine features an article written by Matt Taibbi, the finest political writer on the planet since Rolling Stone’s last great one, Hunter S. Thompson. Taibbi has the rare ability of making complicated subjects, such as the meltdown of the global economy in 2008, understandable to us common folk who do not have doctorates in economics. He writes with wit, humor and a sharp pen not afraid of anybody or anything.
Taibbi has more talent in his left nostril hairs than nearly all journalists in his field combined, and for years he’s been putting them to shame with his writings.
So when I first heard rumblings Rolling Stone had an article in its latest issue that could have major implications on the war in Afghanistan, I automatically assumed Taibbi wrote it. Well before I received my issue in the mail, I learned it was not written by him, though, and instead was written by first-time Rolling Stone contributor Michael Hastings. Surprising, yes, but not really. The magazine knows how to find the best of the best.
Hastings stumbled on a bit of luck with the assignment. He was suppose to interview his subject, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, over a two-day period, but the volcano in Iceland grounded his flights home, giving him access to McChrystal for a month. During this period Hastings heard the general say many of the things that led to his downfall, especially his mockery of Vice President Joe Biden.
It’s these foolish remarks that ended McChrystal’s military career, but anyone who actually read the article now knows the heart and soul of it lies with what it says about Obama’s failure to commit the necessary military power to succeed in Afghanistan or his failure to begin troop withdrawal as he once promised. By doing neither, the article backs with facts and quotes, the president is guaranteeing failure.
In many ways, it’s a shame the best reporting in the media is being done by Rolling Stone. Instead of being surprised by this fact, though, other media should follow its example. No matter the politics of the publication, all subjects should be treated as though politics don’t exist. And more importantly, as though they aren’t subjects that should be feared, even if it is the president.