who was still very much on the upward trajectory of his career but in the time we had with him here on earth, he had a knack in his work for upsetting powerful people. his reporting for "rolling stone" magazine piece called "the runaway general" won a george polk award and resulted in the resignation of general stanley mcchrystal. michael's book "panic 2012" took a scythe not just to the re-election campaign of the sitting president, but also to the press corps that tries to make its own bones every four years by covering campaigns like that according to the campaign's own rules. in "panic 2012" michael hastings turned to the phrase "off the record" into an epithet that damned the newsmakers but also the journalists who accepted those terms. his book about the iraq war and death of his american fiancee, my friend, andi parhamovich. that book was a heartbreaking
kenneth pollack makes an appearance in michael's book as kenneth pollack, the go invade iraq guy. what's ironic is kenneth pollack just this week is, again, getting quoted credulously again by "the new york times." by a media that, again, is showing itself to be fully capable of sleepwalking the country back into another iraq war on the say-so of the people they quoted to get us there so disastrously the last time. some people come off better than others. there's what i think is maybe a michael isikoff character doing real reporting. there's tom friedman from "the new york times" cheerleading for the war. there's direct quotes from the "the new york times," itself, and from "news "weweek" writtenm perspective of 2002 and 2003 as the outlets were failing and failing to notice they were failing, while the journalism industry treated the war as an opportunity for career advancement and not as something that ought to call up a rather sacred trust with the public to try to get it right. and in the middle of it all, in the middle of what turns out to
speechwriter for the white house and state department and the wife of the late michael hastings. thank you so much for being here. >> thanks for having me and thanks for that beautiful memory of michael's reporting. >> well, i mean, i have to ask, if i know you through michael. we didn't know each other except through your relationship. did you see his reporting the way that those of us who knew him professionally saw it? did he know that he was poking people in the eye as much as he was poking people in the eye when he was doing it? >> oh, absolutely. he didn't care what other people said about him, but he cared about the people in his stories. he cared about the human stories. he cared about getting it right, getting it accurate. he knew that sometimes he had to be confrontational. he definitely, you know, paid a huge price after he wrote the profile of general mcchrystal in terms of all of the just anger from his colleagues in the press. he dealt with it at a really young age. that's why recently when the
war on the say-so of the people they quoted to get us there so disastrously the last time. some people come off better than others. there's what i think is maybe a michael isikoff character doing real reporting. there's tom friedman from "the new york times" cheerleading for the war. there's direct quotes from "the new york times," itself, and from "newsweek" written from perspective of 2002 and 2003 as the outlets were failing and failing to notice they were failing, while the journalism industry treated the war as an opportunity for career advancement and not as something that ought to call up a rather sacred trust with the public to try to get it right. and in the middle of it all, in the middle of what turns out to be a gonzo and very funny and very profane story is a "newsweek" intern who in the book is named michael m. hastings. character mr. hastings very transparently named right after himself. and in the book, michael m. hastings is a character that is not particularly sympathetically
of michael's reporting. >> well, i mean, i have to ask, if i know you through michael. we didn't know each other except through your relationship. did you see his reporting the way that those of us who knew him professionally saw it? did he know that he was poking people in the eye as much as he was poking people in the eye when he was doing it? >> oh, absolutely. he didn't care what other people said about him, but he cared about the people in his stories. he cared about the human stories. he cared about getting it right, getting it accurate. he knew that sometimes he had to be confrontational. he definitely, you know, paid a huge price after he wrote the profile of general mcchrystal in terms of all of the just anger from his colleagues in the press. he dealt with it at a really young age. that's why recently when the bo, we bergdahl story came out, it held up so well because he did such amazing reporting back two years ago, but it, you know,
and personal story about the war and about that personal relationship. but even then, michael's reporting pulled no punches and spared no feelings when it came to apportioning blame for why that attack happened. and now, a year since he's been gone, and michael's work turns out is back at the center of the news. it turns out, no surprise, it's as upsetting and as relevant as ever and it's happening on two different stories at the same time. first, there's the release of u.s. prisoner of war bowe bergdahl after five years imprisonment at the hands of the taliban. when president obama made the shock announcement two weeks ago that bowe bergdahl had been released, you want to know what happened all over the country? coast to coast? every journalist in the country who was going to be covering that story started reading michael hastings again because michael had written for "rolling stone" the definitive profile of sergeant bergdahl and his family and he'd written it two years
deal that sealed his release was the exact same deal that was negotiated with the taliban fully two years beforehand. and we know that specifically because michael hastings reported it two years ago. a year before he died. and tomorrow, when this novel is published, michael hastings will once again be right back in the center of the news. right back in the middle of the most important story in the country. because it turns out that as the media right now is once again turning credulously to members of the george w. bush administration to have them spin a case for yet more war in iraq, it turns out that while we are doing that again as a country right now, the novel that michael hastings had lurking on his computer hard drive which is being published tomorrow, turns out that book is a laugh out loud totally uncompromising screamer of a novel about how the media blew it so badly when it came to the war in iraq. the magazine in the book is a very, very thinly disguised "newsweek" magazine where
be a gonzo and very funny and very profane story is a "newsweek" intern who in the book is named michael m. hastings. character mr. hastings very transparently named right after himself. and in the book, michael m. hastings is a character that is not particularly sympathetically rendered, but he is there. very recognizable in the middle of it all. writing it all down with the uncompromising willing to burn every bridge, willing to upset the powerful courage that we know from michael hastings in real life. the book is called "the last magazine." it's a novel. it's out tomorrow. and michael has been gone for a year now, but he has never been more in the middle of it all than he is with this trenchan punch in the media's guts at a time when we really need one. joining us now for the interview, elise jordan, former speechwriter for the white house and state department and the wife of the late michael hastings. thank you so much for being here. >> thanks for having me and thanks for that beautiful memory
missing. the fact that sergeant bergdahl was at the center of american efforts to negotiate peace terms with the taliban. if you heard anyone talk about the details of sergeant bowe bergdahl when he got out two weeks ago because the person you heard talking about it went back and read michael hastings' definitive profile of bowe bergdahl and the family. to absolutely no acclaim and not much attention, but it was definitive account of what happened. when bowe bergdahl got out, the deal that sealed his release was the exact same deal that was negotiated with the taliban fully two years beforehand. and we know that specifically because michael hastings reported it two years ago. a year before he died. and tomorrow, when this novel is published, michael hastings will once again be right back in the center of the news. right back in the middle of the most important story in the country. because it turns out that as the media right now is once again turning credulously to members of the george w. bush administration to have them spin a case for yet more war in iraq, it turns out that while we are doing that again as a country right now, the novel that michael hastings had lurking on his computer hard drive which is
rendered, but he is there. very recognizable in the middle of it all. writing it all down with the uncompromising willing to burn every bridge, willing to upset the powerful courage that we know from michael hastings in real life. the book is called "the last magazine." it's a novel. it's out tomorrow. and michael has been gone for a year now, but he has never been more in the middle of it all than he is with this trenchant punch in the media's guts at a time when we really need one. joining us now for the interview, elise jordan, former speechwriter for the white house and state department and the wife of the late michael hastings. thank you so much for being here. >> thanks for having me and thanks for that beautiful memory of michael's reporting. >> well, i mean, i have to ask, if i know you through michael. we didn't know each other except through your relationship. did you see his reporting the way that those of us who knew him professionally saw it? did he know that he was poking people in the eye as much as he