As someone who is a fact checker for a weekly newspaper, reading about the fact checking questions that were asked (link) raises some troubling issues. Especially where it was made clear that comments were not supposed to be included. This does tend to suggest that the accusation by some media sources, including the Telegraph (link) that:
So far from this being “terrific journalism” as my colleague Harry Mount put it, the Rolling Stone piece now looks much more like a disgrace to the profession.
The worst thing about this is it won't matter in the long run, Rolling Stone got what they wanted with this story, sensationalism. And it cost someone their job...which only adds to their story. It's also helped add to the impression that President Obama is very thin skinned - (link):
But what do McChrystal's and BP's defenestration tell us about the president of the United States? Barack Obama is a thin-skinned man and, according to Britain's Daily Telegraph, White House aides indicated that what angered the president most about the Rolling Stone piece was "a McChrystal aide saying that McChrystal had thought that Obama was not engaged when they first met last year." If finding Obama "not engaged" is now a firing offense, who among us is safe?