BY MICHAEL S. JOHNSON

 The flash from the explosion–and implosion–of General Stanley McChrystal has faded and his story is already old news.  Lindsay Lohan, Mel Gibson and Rod Blagojevich are back in the headlines. 

 That’s too bad.   If there is any good to come of the McChrystal tragedy, if we as a society are to learn from the experience, then we need to sift through the rubble again and see if we can’t find out more about the right and the wrong,  who did what to whom, why it happened and how, and what has changed or will change as a result.  It’s important. 

 General McChrystal, as you will recall, was the U.S. commander in Afghanistan brought down by a story in Rolling Stone Magazine. McChrystal and his aides were quoted as speaking derogatorily and crudely of the civilian chain of command from Washington to Kabul.

 The story caused serious direct and collateral damage.  The coverage for a brief time was thorough, but there is a lot more for serious journalists to cover. 

• General McChrystal, at the height of what apparently was an exemplary 34-year military career will apparently resign from the Army this fall, his career in shambles, by his own hand, to be sure.  He may not be alone.  It may be safe to assume that a good many of the career soldiers around him have suffered permanent career damage.  What chain of events, what train of logic in Washington and Afghanistan brought him to his end?  What’s his story? 

 The military command in Afghanistan and the military’s relationship with civilian leadership in the war zone have been forced into a major realignment, further compromising progress there, and raising questions about the fundamentals of the relationship between diplomats and warriors.  What happens now in the relationship between McChrystal’s replacement, General Petraeus and Ambassador Eikenberry and White House czar Negroponte?   How are the Departments of State and Defense and the White House sorting out the perpetual conflict between civilian and military rule?

 The Pentagon is putting new restrictions on media access to military personnel and should be, if it is not already, undergoing a major reassessment of the ground rules and guidelines for coverage of military operations, particularly in war zones.  If not, why not? The incident raises all kinds of questions about military beat reporting, and the extent to which the military is obligated to cooperate with the traditional media, new media and those like Rolling Stone that are trying to morph their way into new segments of the business.  

• Media institutions should be, if they are not already, confronting a long list of concerns: journalistic ethics; competitive business practices that seem to supersede news judgments; the evolving definition of what is news and what isn’t; the withholding of legitimate news from the public to hype a story or a book; the rampant use of anonymous sources; the trust between journalists and their subjects; and even who owns news content, an issue raised by the pirating of the Rolling Stone article before publication. The biggest conundrum rests at the feet of serious journalists who must  wrestle with and judge, the deception, deceit, exploitation, opportunism, hype and hustle that seemed to infect the work of the author of the article, Michael Hastings (CBS’ Lara Logan so far is among the very few to have expressed consternation about Hastings’ conduct and agenda).

• And finally, there is even the broader issue of the continual and persistent erosion in the willingness of people to enter public service. New York Times Columnist David Brooks addressed that issue recently with excellent historical context.  He wrote:  “By putting the kvetching (of McChrystal and his aides) in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority.”  He continued:  “The reticent ethos had its flaws.  But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

In the end, there’s a long list of losers:  McChrystal and his aides, the military, the media, the American people, and even Afghanistan. 

 But there are never losers without winners.  

 Rolling Stone Magazine, after suffering sagging advertising and a decline in circulation, has by some accounts experienced a surge of both.  It may now join so many other mostly infotainment tabloids that are doing well exploiting the public’s insatiable appetite for gossip, gotcha journalism and a colorful and imaginary blend of fact and fiction.

 But Rolling Stone’s triumph is nothing compared to… 

Michael Hastings, the freelance writer who took down McChrystal.  He won immediate fame and the potential for future fortune. It was announced last week that he has already signed a lucrative book deal. 

 Editors’s Note: Mike Johnson is a former journalist, who worked on the Ford White House staff and served as press secretary and chief of staff to House Republican Leader Bob Michel, prior to entering the private sector. He is co-author of a book, Surviving Congress, a guide for congressional staff.   He is currently a principal with the OB-C Group.