Minx Dynamic Pages for Movable Type

Confederate Yankee

December 17, 2007

Shorter Hitchens

Matthew 22:21 (NIV): "...Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Perhaps it didn't quite have the pedigree (or the venom) Hitchens was looking for, but it does make the general point more succinctly.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:57 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

You Like Me, You Really Like Me...

John Hawkins has posted the The 6th Annual Right Wing News Conservative Blog Awards as voted upon by 45 of my fellow bloggers, and Confederate Yankee finished 3rd ahead of Newsbusters (4) and Michael J. Totten (4), and behind Michael Yon (2) and Michelle Malkin (1) in the category of "Best Original Reporting By A Blog."

I'm honored to be included in this list and more than a little surprised to find myself in such esteemed company. I'd like to thank my fellow bloggers and blog readers for their support over the course of the year.

I'm humbled.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:37 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 14, 2007

The Momentous Passing of the Ron Paul Blimp over Northern Raleigh, North Carolina, as Viewed from Research Triangle Park, NC on Friday, December 14, 2007, at 1:00 PM.

Money well spent.

Update: Even better.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:23 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Questionable Numbers

A USA Today article earlier this week noted the increasing confirmed or suspected suicides among members of the armed forces, but provided questionable figure for civilian suicides for comparison. The military suicide rate was pushed to USA Today by Senator Patty Murray, (D-WA). Murray was just one of 21 Democrats to vote against the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

According to the USA Today article:

A record number of soldiers — 109 — have killed themselves this year, according to Army statistics showing confirmed or suspected suicides.
The deaths occur as soldiers serve longer combat deployments and the Army spends $100 million on support programs.
...
Those numbers show 77 confirmed suicides Army-wide this year through Nov. 27 and 32 other deaths pending final determination as suicides.
The Army updated those statistics Wednesday, confirming 85 suicides, including 27 in Iraq and four in Afghanistan.
The highest number of Army suicides recorded since 1990 was 102 in 1992 — a period when the service was 20% larger than today.
A total of 109 suicides this year would equal a rate of 18.4 per 100,000, the highest since the Army started counting in 1980. The civilian suicide rate was 11 per 100,000 in 2004, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The discrepancy between military and civilian suicide rates—18.4/100,000 for the military, and 11/100,000 for civilians—is certainly shocking.

But it isn't necessarily accurate in an oranges-to-oranges comparison.

For example, an Associated Press account published today states that the civilian suicide rate for one segment of the population, middle-aged Americans 45-54, has risen dramatically, and that it isn't as far from the military rate as the USA Today article states.

The rate rose by about 20 percent between 1999 and 2004 for U.S. residents ages 45 through 54 — far outpacing increases among younger adults, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.
In 2004, there were 16.6 completed suicides per 100,000 people in that age group. That's the highest it's been since the CDC started tracking such rates, around 1980. The previous high was 16.5, in 1982.
Experts said they don't know why the suicide rates are rising so dramatically in that age group, but believe it is an unrecognized tragedy.
The general public and government prevention programs tend to focus on suicide among teenagers, and many suicide researchers concentrate on the elderly, said Mark Kaplan, a suicide researcher at Portland State University.
"The middle-aged are often overlooked. These statistics should serve as a wake-up call," Kaplan said.

For a like comparison to be made, one can—and perhaps should— try to compare the military suicide rate against the most demographically-comparable civilian group, and not the entire U.S. population.

When this is done, the CDC figures show that the 2004 age-adjusted suicide rate for civilian men—which would most closely correlate to the mostly male military population—is at 15.2 per 100,000, just 1.4/100,000 different than the military figure. This isn't an oranges-to-oranges comparison with military deaths, but at least we're closer to talking citrus in both instances.

The highest overall suicide rate among the groups studied was among males 65 or older, at 28.9 per 100,000.

For men, getting old seems to be a far greater risk factor for suicide than going to war, but then, I'm not a statistician.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 13, 2007

Another Fake Massacre

This is CNN:

Iraqi soldiers have found a mass grave of mutilated bodies in a restive region north of Baghdad, a local security official told CNN Thursday.
...
Iraqi soldiers said 12 of the bodies found north of Baghdad were beheaded and four others were mutilated. The corpses, all male, were discovered Wednesday near Muqdadiya in Diyala province north of the capital, the official, from Diyala province, said on Thursday.
He said police believe al Qaeda in Iraq left behind the mass grave.

Uh, no.

From Task For Iron's PAO via email:

This appears to false reporting. We currently have no information to confirm this. Neither the Brigade on the ground, or out teams that work with the IA or IPs can confirm this.

This is at least the fifth "massacre of civilians story by al Qaeda" attributed to anonymous police, civilian, or military sources by incurious reporters this year.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:01 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Eric Alterman's Alternate Universe

Alterman compares yesterday's circular firing squad of current and former TNR staffers to Rathergate... from a "nuanced" perspective.

The situation is, in many aspects, similar to the CBS Dan Rather mess, as the story has yet to be proven true or false, but remains insufficiently documented.

The community-based reality. Don't leave ours without it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:21 AM | Comments (60) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 12, 2007

Open Season

Just when you thought the TNR debacle over "Shock Troops" was over, current and former TNR staffers have begun firing at each other.

In the New York Observer... Bridal blog?

Quoth Elspeth:

"Yeah, it's a bummer, but it's hard to shed any tears over Frank," Elspeth Reeve was telling The Observer in a phone interview Friday, the day before her husband, U.S. Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, joined her at her mother’s house in Missouri for his 30-day leave.

And:

Ms. Reeve said she was surprised to learn, in early November while visiting her husband in Germany (where he was transferred upon completing his tour of duty in Iraq), that Mr. Foer planned to retract the stories. She said that she and Mr. Beauchamp had not expected Mr. Foer to take any decisive action until Mr. Beauchamp returned to the U.S. this week, at which point they thought it would be much easier for him to speak up in his own defense.
"I think Scott thought Frank was on his side, you know? And that he understood that he was in a really difficult situation and so would be patient until Scott got out of Iraq," Ms. Reeve said. "I don't think Scott realized the limits on Frank’s patience."
Ms. Reeve also argued that Mr. Foer's retraction, titled "The Fog of War," had failed to prove that any of Mr. Beauchamp’s stories contained fabrications—all it did, she said, was demonstrate that Mr. Foer was tired of dealing with the scandal.

At least one current TNR staffers had other opinions:

According to Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at TNR, the magazine received little cooperation from Mr. Beauchamp throughout the investigation process. "The basis [for the retraction] was just that Scott is maddening," he said. "He's just flaky, he's irresponsible, he doesn't do things that are in his own obvious interest to do. ... Scott was the guy who lives in the group house and is supposed to pay the electric bill and just doesn't, and the lights get shut off. Frank was the guy who had the lights shut out on him."

Hmmm... perhaps they should have figured that out before they published three of his stories?

The most damning comment, however, comes from TNR editor in chief, Martin Peretz—who was notably mute throughout the entire scandal.

"Certainly in retrospect we shouldn't have published them," he told The Observer Monday. "They did not meet the highest standards of proof."

I would have expected Peretz to provide more backing for embattled editor Franklin Foer. Interesting...

Update: And more today, including a previously unmentioned conversation between Peter Scoblic, Elspeth Reeve, and Scott Beauchamp.

Why didn't Frank mention that conversation in his 14-page opus, and why won't Scoblic discuss it now?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:38 PM | Comments (50) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Thank You for Your Prompt Press Release

Now that the more than two-years-old alleged gang-rape of Jamie Leigh Jones by Kellog Brown and Root contractors has made national headlines, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has stepped forward to offer a statement:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is calling for a formal government investigation into allegations that a young female American contractor was gang-raped in Iraq and then held incommunicado in a large shipping container by her American employer, KBR, then a subsidiary of Halliburton.
"These claims must be taken seriously and the U.S. government must act immediately to investigate Ms. Jones' claims," Sen. Clinton wrote in a letter today to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Where was Hillary's concern for these claims seven months ago?

On May 16, 2007, Jones stated that:

I wrote every senator in the United States to bring awareness to the fact that after approximately two years, I hadn't had one day in court or any movement with my criminal case.

The sad thing about Clinton’s statement?

She may be one of the first Senators, if not the first, to respond to these claims.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:27 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

At PJM: The Jamie Leigh Jones Rape Case

I have a pair of posts up at Pajamas Media this morning regarding the alleged July, 2005 gang-rape of a young female contractor in Iraq. ABC News blog The Blotter broke the story and it seems to have triggered an investigation in the House Judiciary Committee as a result. Unfortunately, what came off the pages of The Blotter has significant discrepancies with the claims made in the legal documents.

It isn't fabulism, but it is sensationalism.

The second post at Pajamas this morning is the chronology of Jaime Leigh Jones experiences that was once published as "Jamie's Journal" that was pulled down yesterday and delinked in the site navigation as if it ever existed.

I'd emailed Ms. Jones' attorney yesterday morning with questions, and within several hours, the page was down. Those are the facts. I'm not yet sure if there is any cause and effect involved, but I should be able to clear that up with I speak with her attorney, Todd Kelly, later today.

For those of you who might expect me to be trying to debunk the case... don't.

Though there are some inconsistencies with certain aspects of the case and the way it has been reported, absolutely nothing seems to contradict the key claim that she was savagely, brutally raped. Nothing contradicts the fact that she has not be able to find justice for 2 years.

I think she's a brave young woman, and hope that she can find both emotional and physical healing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:38 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 10, 2007

AP'S Conflict of Interest

There is one current story in Iraq that has attracted the full attention of the Associated Press, and that is the case of Bilal Hussein, an AP photographer and terrorism suspect. The AP report on Hussein's hearing yesterday leaves out the fact that Hussein was arrested with a known al Qaeda terrorist... one of but many troubling aspects of the news organization's decision to forego objective news reporting in favor of self-serving advocacy in a clear and pervasive conflict of interest.

The Associated Press, as an involved party in this case, should recuse themselves from reporting on Hussein's trial.

According to The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles:

In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.
That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.
It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information – not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.
It means we don't plagiarize.
It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.
It means we don't misidentify or misrepresent ourselves to get a story. When we seek an interview, we identify ourselves as AP journalists.
It means we don’t pay newsmakers for interviews, to take their photographs or to film or record them.
It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.
And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.

AP editor Kim Gamel cannot claim to be avoiding bias and a conflict of interest when interviewing AP spokesman Paul Colford about the trial of AP employee Bilal Hussein.

In what alternate universe is it acceptable for a journalist to interview a senior staffer in the same news organization about a fellow employee?

Gamel cannot claim to be objective and retain the ability to "report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action" when Gamel is reporting upon the Associated Press.

Whether or not Bilal Hussein is guilty of terrorism-related charges is a matter for the Iraqi criminal justice system to decide.

That the Associated Press is in violation of their own stated values and principles is readily apparent.

Just don't expect them to admit it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:02 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 07, 2007

Smith Resigns...

...as a freelancer at NRO:

Dear Readers,
After much reflection and consideration, I am withdrawing from my professional relationship as a regular freelancer with National Review Online.
This is my own decision. No one at NRO has asked me to do this, nor has anyone suggested or even hinted I should. But I believe this to be in the best interest of the publication which I have so much respect for.
Both NRO and I have taken far too much heat for something which would never have happened had I been more specific in terms of detailing my sourcing while blogging about Lebanon at "The Tank". That is a responsibility I have to accept.
It was an honor to write for NRO. NRO has stood by me and supported me throughout all of this, and for that — and for so many other things over the years — I will always be grateful. And I will always cherish my relationship with NRO.
As I said in an interview the other day, I'm not sure what the future holds for me in this. But what I do know is that I will continue to march forward into it.
All the best,
W. Thomas Smith Jr.

Franklin Foer, you are on the clock.

Update: Katharyn Jean Lopez provides a full accounting of what went wrong with Smith's reporting from Lebanon at NRO blog "The Tank."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

When Dinosaurs Attack

Dan Riehl points to this gem from a Huffington Post interview with Helen Thomas:

HP:Do you think technology is changing [journalism]? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?
Thomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume.
HP: So if there's this amateur league of journalists out there, trying to do what you do...
Thomas: It's dangerous.

To a certain extent, I agree with Thomas that blogging is dangerous... for journalists. The gatekeeper isn't dead, but he is ailing.

Blogging software now makes it easy for subject matter experts and enthusiasts to provide the insights and critical review that most journalists simply don't have the background to report thoroughly, or accurately.

I'd hasten to add that this isn't always the fault of journalists. Many if not most journalists are generalists, who may be assigned to whatever the "hot" story of the day may be, across a wide range of topics. We've less tolerance for the siloed journalists who cover a specific beat and refuse to become subject matter experts in the area that they are assigned.

But no matter where journalists come from, must are always still primarily journalists, with a communications/journalism background, and they simply cannot compile the depth or breadth of knowledge that someone who has the academic and practical professional experience that many bloggers have developed.

It is for these reasons that science blogs, milblogs, tech blogs and law blogs almost always have better commentary than the journalists merely assigned to cover the same areas, even though these bloggers will rarely break as many new news stories. Where bloggers typically excel is with providing content and corrections to news stories that journalist simply don't have the expertise to give.

Now, it is a fair criticism that with tens of millions of blogs that many, if not most of them, are junk. It is a fair assessment that most blogs merely exist to echo opinions, but provide very little in the way of news in their content. But it is equally true that in blogging the cream rises to the top. What we increasing find in journalism, however, is that what floats to the top assuredly isn't cream.

Bloggers have removed the mystique of the profession of journalism. It isn't rocket science.

It never was.

Though taught on the undergraduate and graduate level, some of the best journalists lack a college degree. Good reporting is craft or a trade reliant on a thirst for knowledge, dilligence, insight, ethics, and an ability to communicate—personality traits that no journalism school in the country can provide. The best a journalism program can do is polish the skills and technique of someone who already has these traits, but specific pedigrees are irrelevant when it comes the long-term quality of the work. A degree from Columbia may get your foot in the newsroom, but it won't keep you there. The quality of your work determines your future... or should.

I can think of a half dozen bloggers covering politics that have done more original reporting than Helen Thomas over the past few years and certainly deserve a seat in the White House Press Corps more than Thomas, who only seem to exist now as an irritant for the White House Press office, and as an amusement for her peers.

In the end perhaps it is her own current irrelevance that makes Thomas regard bloggers as dangerous, as a new breed of information providers devours the old.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Democrats Determined to Miss the Good News from Iraq

My newest post is up at Pajamas Media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:02 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 06, 2007

Surviving the Mall

You should never have to shop in fear, but yesterday's senseless murders at an Omaha, Nebraska mall remind us that violence can happen almost anywhere. Because it can, it isn't a bad idea to have an exit strategy in the back of your mind.

In the very unlikely event that you find yourself in a situation like that in Nebraska yesterday or previous shootings this year in malls in Salt Lake City, Kansas City, and Douglasville, Georgia, there are simple actions you can take to increase your changes of getting out unharmed.

Get in.
The long, wide corridors and hallways lined with stores in a mall provide us with easy access from one store to another. In situations where a shooter is on the loose, they are also going to be the first route of escape for shoppers. The panicked rush of people attempting to use these corridors to escape increases the risk of being trampled in a mob. It goes without saying that these long open hallways provide next to no cover from any bullets fired.

If you happen to be walking in the mall and a shooting occurs, get into the nearest store or side hallway.

Get low.
Firearms, be they handguns, rifles, or shotguns, are typically fired from the shoulder. Most bullets or pellets travel roughly on a horizontal plane from shoulder to waist high. By going prone, you decrease your chances of getting hit. Once down, stay down. Bullets have no problem penetrating multiple layers of building materials. Just because you do not see the shooter does not mean you are out of danger.

Get out.
Stores do not bring their merchandise in through the front door. Almost all have loading docks, and to comply with fire codes, an emergency exit that leads either to a back hallway, or provide directs access to the outside of the building. Look up for the "exit" sign on the ceiling at the back of the store, and make your way there as fast as possible, keeping as low as possible.

Keep moving.
Once you make it outside, keep moving. Put as much physical space and as many physical objects between you and the scene as possible.

Putting it all together.

Get in.
Get low.
Get out.
Keep moving.

File that bit of information in the back of your mind. I'll pray you never have occasion to use it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:25 AM | Comments (44) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 05, 2007

Nine Dead in Nebraska Mall Shooting

May God be with the families of the killed and wounded.

There really isn't a whole lot more to be said at this point, but I'd like to offer some clarification of media statements if that will help people process the story.

ABC News cites police as saying an SKS rifle was used in the shooting. The SKS is not an assault rifle, despite it being called that erroneously by some news outlets. One account attributed to ABC News claims that the shooter used a weapon with two magazines. This would throw the initial identification of the weapon as an SKS into doubt, as the overwhelming majority of SKS rifles use 10-round magazines permanently affixed to the weapon, though some variants do have the capability to use detachable magazines. If the rifle did use detachable magazines, the likelihood is greater that it was an AK-pattern rifle.

Both firearms are chambered for the 7.62x39 cartridge, typically firing an intermediate-power 123-grain .30-caliber bullet.

I'd caution readers not to make too much of accounts of a grenade being recovered from the parking lot of the same mall last week. The pineapple-style grenade casing was phased out decades ago, and the item recovered is more than likely just a novelty.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:42 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

IowaHawk: Foer's Rough Draft

Did we have a Jayson Blair on our hands--or, closer to home, another Stephen Glass, the fabulist who did so much to tarnish this magazine's reputation ten years ago? Or perhaps another Ruth Shalit, whose plagiarism at this magazine did somewhat less tarnishing 2 years earlier? Or could he be another Lee Siegel, whose 2007 sock puppeting at this magazine resulted another tarnishing, albeit only around 40 on the Glass Tarnish Quotient? One fact was clear: painful experience has taught us at The New Republic to be on the lookout for tarnishings...

Heh. Read the whole thing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:22 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Killing Themselves Softly

"Re-reporting" for The New Republic doesn't apparently consist of going back to talk with experts they've interviewed to discuss discrepancies in their claims.

On August 9, I published When Hidden Experts are Found, an interview with Doug Coffey, the Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems. He is the corporate spokesmen TNR cited—anonymously— on August 2 (my bold):

The last section of the Diarist described soldiers using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to kill dogs. On this topic, one soldier who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: "How you do this (I've seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline." TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described.

As TNR did not publish his name—or for that matter, any other experts they claim support the allegations made in "Shock Troops"—I stumbled across Coffey purely by accident.

It quickly became apparent that TNR did not ask him to actually review the specific claims made about Bradley capabilities in "Shock Troops," and once he reviewed the exact passages, he didn't seem very convinced:

I can't pretend to know what may or may not have happened in Iraq but the impression the writer leaves is that a "driver" can go on joy rides with a 35 ton vehicle at will. The vehicle has a crew and a commander of the vehicle who is in charge. In order for the scenario described to have taken place, there would have to have been collaboration by the entire crew.
The driver's vision, even if sitting in an open hatch is severely restricted along the sides. He sits forward on the left side of the vehicle. His vision is significantly impaired along the right side of the vehicle which makes the account to "suddenly swerve to the right" and actually catch an animal suspect. If you were to attempt the same feat in your car, it would be very difficult and you have the benefit of side mirrors.
Anyone familiar with tracked vehicles knows that turning sharply requires the road wheels on the side of the turn to either stop or reverse as the road wheels on the opposite side accelerates. What may not be obvious is that the track once on the ground, doesn't move. The road wheels roll across it but the track itself is stationary until it is pushed forward by the road wheels.
The width of the track makes it highly unlikely that running over a dog would leave two intact parts. One half of the dog would have to be completely crushed.
It also seems suspicious that a driver could go on repeated joy rides or purposefully run into things. Less a risk to the track though that is certainly possible but there is sensitive equipment on the top of the vehicle, antennas, sights, TOW missile launcher, commander and if it was a newer vehicle, the commander's independent viewer, not to mention the main gun. Strange things are known to happen in a combat environment but I can't imagine that the vehicle commander or the unit commander would tolerate repeated misuse of the vehicle, especially any action that could damage its ability to engage.

This interview with Mr. Coffey has been cited once or twice, and seems to cast significant doubt on the quality of "re-reporting" done by the editors of The New Republic.

I would think that in the almost four months since this interview first posted that TNR would seek to reestablish contact with Mr. Coffey to discuss the apparent discrepancies between what they suggest he said, and what he said here, especially as this is often cited as one of the strongest claims against the quality and intent of their investigation.

To date, The New Republic still refuses to release the names of the other experts they said supported the claims made in "Shock Troops."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 04, 2007

Slowly, Slowly...

The TNR saga is slowly seeping into the media, with posts this morning at the Washington Post and the New York Times, in addition to last night's mention in the New York Observer.

Not a single one of these outlets discusses the fact that Franklin Foer spent the better part of 13 pages alleging a military conspiracy spanning four bases in three countries involving dozens of soldiers, from privates to colonels.

I guess they didn't want to discuss how nutty that explanation sounds.

Nor did they mention that Foer and The New Republic refused to apologize to those soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait they accused of atrocities.

Not a single one them acknowledges that Foer was being deceptive when he claimed back in July "the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published".

Nor did they mention that both of the author's prior stories made statements--at least one unequivocally false--that should have made them doubt his veracity from the beginning. Even Media Matters ripped The New Republic for their handling of this debacle, perhaps marking the first time in history the organization has ever been to the right of major news outlets.

No. I'm not kidding:

Essentially, what unnerved me is that a magazine like TNR was so completely divorced from the military that they did not even have one person on staff -- one single person -- who was personally connected to a career professional in the military (and Elspeth Reeve, an intern at TNR who is now married to Beauchamp -- himself not a career professional in the military -- doesn't count), who could have a) helped them screen what was being sent in the first place, and b) helped them figure out how to fact-check the guy (let alone, after the fact, help them figure out what was really going on). I mean, seriously, how is it that at this point the best de facto depictions of life in-country come ... in Doonesbury?! (The very liberal cartoonist Gary Trudeau is, in a strange twist of journalism, apparently far better wired in to real soldiers on the ground than is the editor of a major magazine? How did this happen?)
Folks, we are six freaking years into a war now. Regardless of how you or I or Eric or anybody feels about the causality of these wars, the fact of these wars remain important for all of us to understand. We are six years into a period in which the military and issues of war have been, like, you know, sort of central. How could TNR remain so divorced from anyone in the military for so long that they eventually fell for this?

Nor have the professional media sought to address, in any way, that The New Republic hid testimony provided to it by military personnel that contradicted their preferred narrative, and have flatly refused to provide the names of their anonymous civilian experts they interviewed, perhaps because the one that was found shows just how disreputable the magazine truly is.

This story is far from over, folks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:28 AM | Comments (99) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 03, 2007

But They're Only The Rabble: Ignore Them

Franklin Foer may be telling the truth when he said "no one at TNR has asked him to" resign. Because smart employees rarely tell their bosses such things, of course.

Commenters to his 14-page non-apology were a bit less restrained:

Posted by Chris Christner
7 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
You broke every rule of journalism and in the process slandered our military. At the very least you owe them an apology. If you had a shred of integrity and respect for the reputation of TNR, you'd also submit your resignation. It's obvious that you waited until the last possible moment to retract Beauchamp's stories, only doing so now because the new TNR book on Election 08's just come out. However, regardless of your blame-the-messenger retraction, the Beauchamp affair is still going to hammer your book's credibility along with that of TNR. As it should.
...
Posted by Hey, Pierre Salinger!
25 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Franklin Foer, your petulant whine about the bad ol' Army and the stressed-out Beauchamp are less than believable. You were had because you WANTED to be had. Get over your self-pity and resign, already.
...
Posted by slp
32 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Franklin: It is time to resign.
...
Posted by tdneeley
56 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
I always suspected Beauchamp's stories were crap. I've already canceled my subscription, after 13 or 14 years. Anyone involved in this debacle should do the honorable thing and resign. You people have very nearly destroyed a great magazine, one I enjoyed reading back when Foer and company were going to keggers and sleeping through Journalism 101. What a disgrace. Goodbye.
...
Posted by redherkey
60 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Franklin, While your efforts to explain this certainly must have taken considerable energy, it does not address the fundamental issue which allowed this myth to be published: the lack of management controls enforcing organizational policy and adherence to both company and journalistic codes of conduct. As a competent manager would explain, the outcome you experienced is what is expected when organizational controls are ignored. This is the default condition to which management is empowered to correct. We do not have spouses or even parties related through means other than the job conducting reviews, fact-checking, etc. We do not verify anonymous sources with other anonymous ones. In fact, anonymous sources are never primary sources except in shady journalism due to the inherent uncontrolled abuse it facilitates. We maintain higher tests when accusations are more significant. Having attempted to effect an outcome that damages national security and disparages the U.S. Army, a very high standard is required. Instead, TNR's efforts would not suffice at a junior high school newspaper. This is a management failure, not a complex trickery of a confused young man. Given the track record of TNR, this is also an institutional failure. TNR simply does not have controls sufficient to produce credible, objective non-fiction publications and does not appear capable of self-reform. Should you and the editorial staff and senior management of the publication seek to provide TNR with an opportunity to continue, resignation is the only appropriate action. CanWest should either clean house and refocus this damaged brand or terminate it and write it off as a lesson in corporate governance and oversight.
...
Posted by Cody B
68 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
"The Plank The smartest blog on the web. Period." No dude, you were busted by many, many blogs who are much smarter than you and don't have an agenda. You should resign right after you apologize to our brave men and women serving our country.
...
Posted by FOER-THE-LIER
75 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
FOER: Well, it depends on what the word "LIE" means!! Can you imagine how much time this little dweeb has spent the last month trying to write this? How NIXONIAN. Tricky Dick never weaseled around more. Notice how the libs, when caught in their own morass slither around just like Tricky Dick. Foer - just remember when people look at you now - they are thinking - "There goes that guy that swallowed harder and longer than Monica ever did." Like one other poster said, it couldn't happen to a nicer, more arrogant bastardi. RESIGN NOW.
...
Posted by C. Pruett
78 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
To borrow and paraphrase: Let us not assassinate these lads further, Mr. Foer You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Obfuscatory tripe. Check. Refusal to accept responsibility. Check. Failure to sincerely apologize. Check. Complete lack of integrity. Check. Mr. Foer, an honorable man would resign. Accordingly, I expect you to stay on.
...
Posted by klfoster
81 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Foer suggests that the Army may be guilty of suppressing Beauchamp through intimidation, thereby holding out the slim hope for himself that one day he and Beauchamp will be cleared of all charges. Foer has not offered an apology. He is as misleading in this regard as the meandering Beauchamp story. The owners of The New Republic have a responsibility to their readers, the public and the Army to make management changes at the magazine to restore its credibility.
...
Posted by Gerry Shuller
91 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Is there an ounce of integrity left at TNR? Of course, Foer and other have to go, but more importantly, the next issue of TRN must not only feature an abject apology, but have POSITIVE stories about the American military that is fighting Islamo-fascism in Iraq.
...
Posted by Cato the Elder
99 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Now I see why it took your honest effort so many months to reach a conclusion: it must have taken at least a quarter to come up with and write 14 pages of self-serving garbage. Why is it that a magazine with a history of publishing fakes, lies, forgeries etc. continues to be duped by Q-list fabulists? Do you not learn from your mistakes? Why are the editors of TNR still employed? Take a tip from Howell Raines and go write about your dogs for Field & Stream. This episode shames Franklin Foer, CanWest and a once great magazine. In a better world Mr. Foer would open his stomach immediately after issuing a straightforward correction. Mr. Foer's demonstrated lack of honor precludes his taking that honorable step and Carthage must be destroyed.
...
Posted by Jim C
110 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You slandered our military, lied to your readers about experts that supposedly corroberated Beauchamp's story, and now you have the nerve to pull the "hey, he pulled the wool over our eyes too" card? I hope canwest gets rid of every last one of you. Jim C
...
Posted by fmfnavydoc
122 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
As a member of the military, your apology, Mr. Foer, isn't worth the damn paper it's written on. You and your magazine violated every rule of journalistic and even personal integrity by publishing Scott Thomas Beuachamp's tripe - you have become the latest poster child for "journalistic integrity" - right up there with Dan Rather, CNN and the others that have used the media to spew their vitriol against those that they see as being "inferior" or not holding the same viewpoint. 14 pages to tell the world "we screwed up" - that has to be a record, especially for a journalist. Your actions brought TNR to the level of a gossip mag, or better yet, to a level lower than that seen at a junior high school student paper. Mr. Foer, you need to do the following: 1. Say the following phrase, "I screwed up"... 2. Submit your resignation, effective immediately. 3. Find employment elsewhere - like a fast food restaurant.
...
osted by Thom Walker
153 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Agreed. Resign. Better yet, fold TNR. It's time she died, and newer breaths were heard.Even if - and it's a big IF - 75% of Beauchamp's stories turn out by some miracle to be true... or even 'fact-based'... it doesn't excuse this shoddy attempt at journalism, and it absolutely does not excuse this multi-page non-apology. (I can't remember the last time a public figure even offered a GENUINE apology, vs a "Gosh, I'm sorry if YOU were offended" snake-in-the-grass escape from self-ownership of an issue - and sadly, this article is lower than the average snake's belly.) Thank the great American military - by their amazing self-sacrifice, you're free to publish this tripe anytime you want. Just please, from now on, file it under pulp fiction. Better yet, don't bother.
...
Posted by Richard
159 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
This is absolute garbage. Come clean, Franklin, and then fall on your sword. Confession is good for the soul. Admit you made an egregious set of editing errors and compounded them by initially standing by your story, and then stonewalling for months. And then do the only honorable thing you've done since this started, and resign. Thank you, by the way, for the $6.00 check you sent, refunding the remainder of my subscription.
...
Posted by Takekaze
168 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
When I read those "stories" the first time my reaction was "What the hell?" My brain was screaming "BS alarm!" Let me explain why. I'm not American, but I have served in my country's military for 8 years. I held a rank equivalent to either Staff Sergeant or Master Sergeant (I always mix them up). I was a tankie. When I read about M2 Brads running over dogs as if it was the easiset thing in the world, I was wondering how the hell one would achieve that. Agreed, we don't have Bradleys, but we do have APCs and I seriously doubt that even our best drivers can run over a dog like this (I know my driver can't do it). When I read about "Mandrake's Bride", my only conclusion was: this story is crap. I know that no NCO or officer would allow such behavior in the mess tent. I would bite off my soldiers' heads for something like that. I would make them regret such behavior. As for the pieces of skull on the head. Oh please, such stories come up all the time and they are usually never true. Oldest propaganda. Apart from that, any NCO or officer would stop it right away. In my eight years of service (four active, four in reserves) I had to deal with US troops a few times. They were usually Marines. And, judging from those men and women, I would, without hesitation, put my hand into the fire for their integrity and honor, because I know they would NEVER behave in the ways described in those ridiculous stories. Now, the way I see it, you, the editors, owe the US military and it's men and women an apology. I think you should fly to Iraq, travel from base to base and apologize to every soldier, every marine, every airman, every sailor, every tankie, every grunt, every pilot, every medic, every driver, every NCO, every officer you meet there and then thank them for their hard work in Iraq and A-stan and for protecting your right of slandering them... I mean, your right of free speech, oh those evil typos. You also owe the American public an apology for lying to them.
...
G. Lutz
174 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
To me, the "re-reporting" and quasi retraction of these stories smack of the same mistakes made in the Killian documents debacle. The editors at TNR decided to print the Beauchamp stories with no serious regard to their veracity simply because they fit into their political milieu and it's narrow minded view of the war in Iraq, and the conduct of the American soldiers fighting that war. Further, your report and retraction of the stories, much like the Dan Rather retraction, appears to state that while the articles in question may not be accurate, you still stand by the basic premise of the stories themselves, thus exposing a base partisanship and lack of journalist integrity at TNR. I am disgusted and saddened by the half hearted retraction, and the utter lack of an apology to the men and women of the United States armed forces. TNR just confirmed all the horrible things it is accused of by the "right-wing" blogosphere. When reporting on weighty issues with such far reaching implications one must take extraordinary diligence to ascertain the veracity of any and all claims made. TNR obviously did not do this, as allowing the new wife of the author to fact check the pieces clearly shows. The lack of professionalism with which TNR has conducted itself throughout this lengthy affair is astounding. One can only hope that it leads to some major changes in personnel in your organization.
...
Posted by Roy Mustang
175 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
Mr. Foer has proven that is not trustworthy enough to hold his current position. This 15 page intelluctually dishonest editoral only serves to highlight this fact. If TNR ever wants to regain the public's trust, it needs to start with the removal of Mr. Foer.
...
Posted by JPLodine
227 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
For Chrissake, resign already.
...
Posted by Shyron M. Beavers
238 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
As a veteran your I am infuriated that your obvious lies and pure hate for America and the POTUS, this yellow journalism put our fighting men in harms way and the support troops. Next time just say we lied, I'm sorry, and I resign!
...
Posted by Steve
246 of 420 | warn tnr | respond
What a convoluted way of saying, "We lied to you." Remember when people used to be noble and just resign when they majorly screwed up? How can anyone ever believe another word printed by your magazine? It's time to clean house or close down.

That is just halfway into the comments section, but I got tired of cutting and pasting. There were also quite a few comments from former TNR subscribers—and future former TNR subscribers—in the comments, but I didn't attempt an accounting.

Ultimately, it will be Canwest that does that... via advertiser feedback, of course. In the end, I'll be surprised if Mr. Foer's wild ride won't end up costing Canwest millions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 02, 2007

Another Fabulist

This time, W. Thomas Smith, Jr., a former Marine writing at NRO blog The Tank.

On Friday, Smith admitted that he:

turned two AK-pattern rifles he witnessed in a tent city into "200-plus heavily armed Hezbollah militiamen," and then;
turned a tip from an informant and men he saw at intersections with radios into "between 4,000 and 5,000 HezB gunmen deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in an unsettling 'show of force,' positioning themselves at road intersections and other key points throughout the city."

Shortly after Smith posted his comments, NRO editor Kathryn Jean Lopez posted a comment of her own, stating in part:

Bottom line: NRO strives to bring you reliable analysis and reporting — whether in presenting articles, essays, or blog posts. Smith did commendable work in Lebanon earlier this year, as he does from S.C. where he is based, as he has done from Iraq, where he has been twice. But rereading some of the posts (see "The Tank" for more detail) and after doing a thorough investigation of some of the points made in some of those posts, I've come to the conclusion that NRO should have provided readers with more context and caveats in some posts from Lebanon this fall. And so I apologize to you, our readers.

It is good that Lopez and Smith admitted to these falsehoods without prompting, but I do not think that adding "context and caveats" to Smith's comments would have been enough to justify them.

At the very least, Smith has earned a suspension from NRO, but considering the magnitude of his fabrications, termination seems warranted.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:20 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

<< Page 136 >>

Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.2783 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2282 seconds, 415 records returned.
Page size 373 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.