Chuck Klosterman Discusses His Non-Role Role in the David Petraeus Scandal

The media demands that the non-essential be essential, and so we now know what Chuck Klosterman thinks of his peculiar involvement in the David Petraues scandal. In July, Klosterman addressed a question in his Ethicist column for New York Times Magazine that many now speculate was written by Paula Broadwell’s husband.

The question was from an anonymous husband whose wife was cheating on him with a “government executive,” whose job was “to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership.” It sounded a lot like something Broadwell’s husband would talk about. However, Hugo Lindgren, editor of the Times Magazine, denied this was the case.

Despite Lindgren’s statement, the media storm picked up, and so it was only natural that Klosterman addressed the situation.

In a column for Grantland, Klosterman says that he doesn’t know who the person who wrote the letter is, and that he never considered the possibility that it was Broadwell’s husband until people started emailing/texting him about it. He also said that getting swept up in a fake story that was being treated as real was rather odd:

 I was fascinated. It was fascinating. I spent a lot of time refreshing my browser. But — of course — it was happening to me, so how else was I going to feel? It’s weird to be inside the news. Moreover, following any event on Twitter radically amplifies the illusion of its import. It makes you believe things matter far more than they do.

In the end, Klosterman says that he learned “nothing” from the experience, which is a perfect response to something that didn’t really happen. The rumors were flying, but all Klosterman had done was what he does each week for the Times Magazine. Which brings us to a question that maybe Klosterman could address next week: How ethical is it of the media to be obsessed with the details of Petraeus’ affair, but not with the fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes that kill innocent people?
We suspect that question might not make the cut.