Why? He was recently charged with a “negligent discharge,” or ND. Meaning his rifle accidentally went off, which doesn’t exactly endear you to your fellow soldiers(or at least that’s what soldiers I know tell me.)Apparently, this didn’t endear him to reporter Michael Yon, or anyone else for that matter. From an earlier newspaper account:

Menard is accused of “neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline. ” In revealing the incident to reporters on April 17, Menard said his gun fired while he was loading it. No one was injured in the incident.

He was found guilty and fined $3500.

I’m probably way behind on this story, and it does seem a tad gratuitous of me to post on it again: kicking the man when he’s down. I’ve been doing a bit of that lately, much to my feigned dismay. (See Newsweek post here, though, as an aside, it looks like they’ve got some decent bids.) I think I also spent a year blogging without ever mentioning ’sex’ in my headlines–not ideal for search engines!–and now, thanks to General Menard, I’ve done it twice in a week.

The Conventional Wisdom doesn’t look good. Newsmax, TV Guide, some 91 year old guy…But, hey, you never know. And as I wrote at length here–along with my own personal biases and disclosures–I hope the magazine survives.

I did notice a new theme pop up in the last 48 hours. If Newsweek does survive, should editor Jon Meacham be allowed to keep his job?

Lee Siegel, writing over at the New York Observer, does not think so. In fact, he rather strongly believes that Meacham should have been tossed overboard before the Washington Post Company even thought of selling the magazine. Writes Siegel:

Newsweek is bleeding money. By every law of capitalism, Jon Meacham should have been replaced. And yet rather than replacing him, Mr. Meacham’s overlords allowed him to strip the magazine, precious component by precious component. They stood by while he bought out and laid off some of the magazine’s best editors and writers, reduced the magazine’s guaranteed circulation base in order to attract a more exclusive class of advertiser-a fancy accounting gimmick that had the effect of  alienating advertisers looking for a large, guaranteed circulation base-and completely transformed the magazine’s decades-old identity, a gimmick that had the effect of bewildering advertisers eager to match their product or service with a magazine’s familiar identity.

AS NEWSWEEK WENT under, Mr. Meacham went higher. The quarterly financial reports brought news of impending ruin, and yet there he was, night after night, beaming before the cameras on every talk show and comedy show you could think of. It was as if Mr. Meacham had decided that rather than save the ship from going under, he would turn it into his own private submarine. His editorial policy mostly amounted to his publishing famous friends and acquaintances, whose shopworn names did nothing for the magazine’s fortunes but everything for Mr. Meacham’s expanding quid pro quo. There is nothing wrong with being a political animal: on the contrary. But Mr. Meacham’s deft maneuverings reaped him recognition and acclaim while his magazine tumbled toward irrelevancy.

Siegel’s last point is echoed by media writer Jeff Bercovici over at The Daily Finance. It’s also something that I’ve pointed out. Getting on TV all the time doesn’t really help the magazine brand as much as it helps the personal brand of said pundit. Jeff writes:

The idea that editors of print publications need to be multi-platform brand ambassadors has gained a lot of currency in the past few years, for fairly obvious reasons: As consumers spend ever less time with print and ever more with digital media, it’s logical to follow them. But merely getting on TV a lot, as a guest on Morning Joe or Charlie Rose or the Meet the Press, is a pursuit with costs but no obvious benefits, at least for so-called “thought leader” magazines that, like Newsweek, depend only to a minimal extent on newsstand sales. When editors and writers are helping TV producers fill their airtime, they may be “sharing their opinions” in “important conversations,” but what they’re not doing is editing or writing or conducting the type of groundbreaking journalism that sparks those conversations.

Alas, it’s now 5 pm, and all those bids are supposed to be in. Perhaps by the time I hit publish, Newsweek will have a new owner and the same editor…Or a new owner and a new editor…Or no owner and no editor…

Brig. Gen. Daniel Menard, who is married with two children, was Canada’s top soldier with a decorated 26-year career. He was based in southern Afghanistan and was due to lead what’s expected to be one of the largest battles so far of the nine-year Afghan war. NATO’s push to oust Taliban fighters from their spiritual stronghold in Kandahar is expected to start within weeks.

But Menard, 42, was relieved of his command over the weekend after Canada’s military brass became aware of allegations that he was having an affair with a female subordinate on his command staff.

The Canadians, btw, are leaving Afghanistan next year.

And from the Canadian press release, on a web page complete with an appropriate number of maple leaves:

Gen Lessard made this decision following allegations concerning BGen Menard’s inappropriate conduct related to the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization directives, which caused Commander CEFCOM to lose confidence in BGen Menard’s capacity to command.

An investigation into the circumstances related to the allegations is being launched.

Oh Canada.

…The key part of that dialogue that Dion witnessed was “You don’t feel it here, but I’ll tell you, it’s a bleeding ulcer outside.” That would have been further clarified by the quote Dion asked to use (which did not appear in the final edited copy) about Gen. McChrystal being asked in Europe and the U.S. whether we are failing. The essence of the comment is not that Marjah itself is going badly: as he said to Dion in a follow on interview on the plane ride back to Kabul — it’s largely on track. It’s that it’s misperceived to be going badly. It’s a distinction, but one I’m sure you grasp and one that could have been better conveyed, even accounting for the motive of wanting to generate interest in the story using the sensational quote: “McChrystal calls for action against perceptions of ‘bleeding ulcer’ in Marjah,” etc.

Okay, so the command would have preferred a headline of ‘calls for actions against perceptions of ‘bleeding ulcer.’ Editor Roy Gutman responds by standing by the story, and pointing out that, in general, headlines like the one suggested above don’t actually exist.

On the headline, though, we’ve discussed it and do not see it as intellectually dishonest or a mischaracterization. It was drawn from the first part of Gen. McChrystal’s statement; “This is a bleeding ulcer right now,” and your staff cleared that statement. Moreover, in the context of the opening anecdote, which suggested that outside pressures are intense and political leaders have limited patience, the further exchange Gen. McChrystal had about force levels and the facts on the ground, Marjah is a very problematic place in the short term. It adds up to being a “bleeding ulcer.”

Good headlines always pick the most salient point of a story in order to grab reader’s attention, and this one did its job. On the issue of balance, the story portrays Gen. McChrystal’s trip as a reality check for himself, the troops on the ground and the American public. The news was in his warnings to the troops about the level of political impatience in Washington and in Europe with the operation in Marjah. Our reporting back here confirms the accuracy of his assertions.

“This is a bleeding ulcer right now,” McChrystal told a group of Afghan officials, international commanders in southern Afghanistan and civilian strategists who are leading the effort to oust the Taliban fighters from Helmand.

“You don’t feel it here,” he said during a 10-hour front-line strategy review, “but I’ll tell you, it’s a bleeding ulcer outside.”

That’s from the excellent Dion Nissenbaum for McClatchy.

I’ve been working on a rather lengthy Afghanistan piece that should be out in the next couple of weeks, in which Gen. Stanley McChrytsal plays a big role. About Marjah–I’ve been hearing criticisms that the expectations were too high, and the military, in a sense, oversold its importance.

There is also the bigger strategic question: why are we fighting for Helmand? It’d be like occupying the U.S. and fighting over Arkansas. No offense, Little Rock. But, I’ve been told that even when McChrystal got to Kabul last year, and the Helmand operation had started, there were serious doubts about whether or not Helmand was worth it. Regardless, they went ahead with Marjah, thinking that it actually was an important piece of the country to take control over.

Why do we need to worry? Johnson cites what the insurgent-types have planned for those their fellow Iraqis who they view as collaborators:

I recently came across a frightening document that outlines another group’s designs for the coming U.S. withdrawal. Published in Fallujah by the Islamic State of Iraq, the umbrella organization composed of numerous insurgent and terrorist groups (including al Qaeda in Iraq), the manual sets forth their “balanced military plan” in chilling simplicity: “1) nine bullets for the traitors and one for the crusader, 2) cleansing, and 3) targeting.” They are practical: “This cannot be accomplished within one or two months, but requires continuous effort.” Those who believe the group’s threats have been rendered hollow by the surge might reflect upon the scores of victims from its triple-suicide car bombing that targeted foreign embassies just weeks ago. This past Friday, upon a string of attacks that killed another hundred Iraqis, the group’s “minister of war” declared: “What is happening to you nowadays is just a drizzle.”

Check out Johnson’s ‘The List To Resettle Iraqi Allies’ project here.

Here’s Time’s Joe Klein, following up on his cover story a few weeks back, saying things ain’t going well.

The adage is: if you’re not winning against a guerrilla insurgency, you’re losing. We’re not winning in Afghanistan… I must admit, again, I’m mystified about where this effort goes from here. Nothing I’ve heard from the U.S. military or other elements of our government leads me to believe we’re on the right track here. Indeed, it raises serious questions about the use of counterinsurgency tactics in a situation where there is no credible partner–and especially in a situation (unlike Iraq) where the insurgents are neighbors, not foreigners.

Klein is the second big foot type pundit to turn on the war in the past month. The other, David Ignatius at the Washington Post, recently wrote that “the underlying anxiety on both sides that the feasibility of the U.S. strategy for this war has yet to be proved.” (Ignatius criticisms are much milder than Klein’s. But, Ignatius can usually be counted on to cheer on these kinds of military adventures, as he had advised to Obama last fall to “roll the dice on Afghanistan.”)

FORWARD OPERATING BASE RAMROD, Afghanistan — NATO commanders are weighing a new way to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan: recognizing troops for “courageous restraint” if they avoid using force that could endanger innocent lives.

The concept comes as the coalition continues to struggle with the problem of civilian casualties despite repeated warnings from the top NATO commander, U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, that the war effort hinges on the ability to protect the population and win support away from the Taliban.

Will the idea of heroism that doesn’t involve pulling the trigger catch on? I have my doubts. I think it’s going to be difficult to get regular soldiers to buy into this concept–which goes against the heroic narrative so embedded in military culture–anytime in the near future. That doesn’t mean they won’t follow the instructions–ie, don’t kill civilians–but I don’t see it being embraced in the field.

But since I need to get a bit of traffic to my site this month, I’m going to weigh in with my own personal view. What I think went wrong, and why.

Disclosures: I’m biased in ways I probably don’t even realize. I still to this day feel a strong emotional investment/connection to the magazine. I’m also in Kabul, overtired and far removed from the New York media world,  so take that into consideration when/if you read the following, and please excuse any hint of axe grinding.

I started my career in journalism at Newsweek in the summer of 2002. I loved working there. Over the next six years, the magazine gave me incredible opportunities as a journalist, for which I will always be grateful.

That being said, I left the magazine in the summer of 2008. There were personal reasons for my choice, but I also wasn’t too keen on the direction the magazine was taking—more opinion, less reporting. The waves of layoffs and buyouts hitting Newsweek were sending what I felt was a fairly troubling message:  the moment an employee got too expensive or too old, they’d be shown the door. The era of the 20 year career at Newsweek had ended.

Over the past 18 months, I watched as the many talented friends I still had at the magazine got laid off, left to other jobs, or quit journalism all together.  What was once a robust corps of some 25 foreign correspondents dwindled to less than five, which accompanied the closing down of almost all the magazine’s foreign bureaus. All and all, a pretty sorry spectacle, and the way they treated folks who’d served them loyally over the years was pretty shabby, which I suppose is to be expected from any corporate entity, but nonetheless lame.

So three main observations.

1)Identity crisis: Even as late as April 2008, I sat in at a meeting with top brass where they claimed to still be committed to actual reporting. Reporting is/was/and always will be Newsweek’s strength. Its biggest stories are rarely the blustery opinion pieces, but its scoops, exclusives, and thorough pieces of journalism/analysis. (Think of great and inspiring reporters like Mike Isikoff, Chris Dickey, Mike Hirsch, Mark Hosenball, or the expensively reported yet popular Newsweek election project, which comes out every four years.) But soon after that meeting, the dreaded Money Men came in, and as Newsweek “insiders” tell me, said that the reporting paradigm was a no go. (Never trust the Money Men! Really, what do they know about journalism? Aren’t we supposed to be the experts on that?) In just a few months, the magazine went from a dedicated  “mass and class” strategy to an “elite opinion” strategy. Newsweek then wanted “edgy” voices—so the powers that be bragged about getting Christoper Hitchens to write for them… (Hitchens, no offense, was edgy in like 1993. )They tried a bunch of gimmick covers, overexposed guest essayists, and took on a sort of junior National Review editorial tone. (Why Dick Cheney Should Be President etc….)

This decision—to basically abandon reporting—I think sealed the magazine’s fate.  Maybe it was inevitable, maybe the Newsweek execs had no choice, but it suggested to me that the end was near.

2) The Damned Interwebs: I’m not going to rehash how the Internet is changing journalism yadda yadda. But what I will say is that some at the top in Newsweek, like many others in the media, were inexcusably clueless about the Web until like 2006, probably 2007(only about a decade or so too late.) Web stories were treated like second class pieces of work; the prestige was still about getting your stories in the magazine. (Anecdote: I was offered a position to be an associate editor at Newsweek.com—I think this was late 2004 or early 2005. I wasn’t allowed to take the job—long story—but I remember one of the top editors telling me that the Web was “a black hole” for my career…) Anyway, there was basically all sorts of confusion, which was never really resolved.

3) Brand Name versus Magazine Brand: Another long time Newsweek veteran described the magazine’s latest incarnation like so: “It’s become a vanity press for [NAME REDACTED] and [NAME REDACTED.]” This points to a larger issue. While the management expected even more from their staff, the top people were out running around building up their own brand names, separate from the magazine. Giving speeches, writing books, doing TV shows. This trend was particularly acute over the past two years. (Leading to this charge, in the Daily Beast, of “absentee landlordism.”)

It was certainly the savvy play—leveraging the Newsweek brand to get all sorts of other side gigs so when the plane did crash into the mountain, you could float safely to the ground. I don’t even begrudge them for doing it–in my own small way, I probably followed their example. But that kind of behavior didn’t really leave a great impression on the staff.  It was fairly transparent, and cast doubt on a) the magazine’s long term viability b)undermined any loyalty that one might otherwise have had. If the big guys are out there hustling, why not us?

In conclusion: I hope Newsweek survives, as I really think it could be great again. It’d be a shame if it disappeared.

Update: For stroll down memory lane, read this. (With an awesome cameo by Newsweek legend Peter Goldman.) And if I were going to pitch to prospective buyers I’d highlight the fact that Newsweek is still one of the most recognizable and strongest global news brands.