Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings has still not been told what ground rules he broke when he wrote about Gen. Stanley McChrystal, ultimately leading to the general’s resignation. Yet a previously approved embed in Afghanistan with a unit that apparently has no problem with Hastings — and in fact invited him to embed — has been canceled due to those alleged broken rules. According to Stars & Stripes, the Pentagon scrapped the embed due to the “political fallout” over Hastings’ article.

But no one has denied the accuracy of the article, and the fallout came because of remarks McChrystal and his staff made about the civilian leadership of the war in Afghanistan. It seems ridiculous to assume that McChrystal, working for the first time with a Rolling Stone reporter, would not be savvy enough to ask his staff to keep it in check. The comments from McCrystal’s staff about superiors, including the president, were unacceptable behavior by military officers, according to the military’s own code. Yet the messenger appears to be catching the blame.

“It should come as no surprise to anybody if unit commanders in Afghanistan are apprehensive about doing work with this reporter in light of the previous experience that their commander had with this reporter,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told Stripes. “You’re only as good as your word, and clearly they don’t believe his word is worth much.”

Hastings has said he broke no ground rules.

The Pentagon’s refusal coincides with an order from Defense Secretary Gates that all interviews be coordinated through the Pentagon public affairs shop, and with a three-page memo from Douglas Wilson, the new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, obtained by The Atlantic, that describes a need to better sell the war. They hope to do this by encouraging more big-picture reporting through senior-official briefings, and less down-and-dirty reporting of battles while embedded with the troops.

Not allowing Hastings — or any other journalist — to embed violates the military’s own stated rules to allow unbiased coverage in the war zone — good or bad. In addition to its role in trying to improve the relationship between the media and military, MRE was created in large part due to concerns that journalists would not be granted access to the war zone. That is precisely what has happened in Mr. Hastings’ case, and it has occurred on the basis of a vague and unsupportable allegation.

Military Reporters & Editors believes the Defense Department must state what ground rules Hastings violated, and we suggest that journalists be allowed to embed based on the rules established early in these wars, and not based on what story the military believes should be told.

LEXINGTON, Ky. — Journalists need reasonable access to battlefields to provide the public a realistic view of what is happening in Afghanistan and other war zones, the top executive of The Associated Press said Thursday.

Read the rest of the story at Editor and Publisher.

Stars and Stripes reported in its Monday, Aug. 24, editions that the Rendon Group of Washington, D.C., has been hired to look at the work of individual reporters and make that assessment, although there was no indication what the criteria are.

MRE President Ron Martz harshly criticized the practice, saying “it is just another way the Pentagon is trying to shape the news that comes from the war zone. The Pentagon should be focused on fighting the war, not profiling journalists. The fact that they won’t profile terrorists but they will profile journalists is an incredible misuse of resources.”

Martz went on to say that “It is my understanding that the contract is in the neighborhood of $1.8 million in taxpayer dollars. That money could have been put to much better use fighting the war or providing services for returning veterans and their families. MRE and its members would be happy to supply Pentagon officials with recent clips from journalists who want to embed at a significantly lower cost to the taxpayers.”

Read the full story here.