NYT - Business/Media & Advertising, Sunday, June 27, "A Magazine Back on a Roll": "Rolling Stone’s explosive piece 'The Runaway General,' which last week brought a disgraceful end to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s career, was just the latest in a string of articles resonating in the nation’s corridors of power."
So writes Jeremy W. Peters in his New York Times article about Rolling Stone's actions in journalistic circles.
Is exposing weaknesses--and "bringing down" those that otherwise might not show their weaknesses again-- something to be proud of, as is Rolling Stone? Did RS behave ethically, albeit toughly, in publishing the report? Does such a magazine, which seems intent on economic survival through shock value, trivialize not only the issues but the Americans fighting in Afghanistan?