October 31, 2007

Beating the Smallest Enemies

Jay Price of McClatchy Newspapers put up an interesting post yesterday afternoon that I happened to catch off of Memeorandum.com, which reminds us that traditionally, it isn't the dramatic wounds of battle that cause most military casualties, but disease and non-combat injuries, and that the supermajority of medical evacuations of military personnel from Iraq are not the result of enemy fire.

Disease, however, too is another native insurgency in which our military seems to have gained the upper hand:

An example of that success is the U.S. fight against leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease spread by sandflies that causes festering wounds and can attack the organs.

When the British army came to Iraq in the 1930s, leishmaniasis incapacitated up to 30 percent of the troops, said Lt. Col. Ray Dunton , a trained entomologist who's in Iraq serving as chief of preventive medicine for the 62nd Medical Brigade.

In 2004, hundreds of U.S. soldiers also were infected. Preventive medicine teams went into action, spraying insecticide and urging troops to use insect repellant. Infestations dropped from an average of 140 a month to nearly zero. Only 10 people have been diagnosed with leishmaniasis this year.

Informed of the situation, Harry Reid's staff is scrambling to issue a statement declaring the war against battlefield illnesses "lost."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:30 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 30, 2007

An Eye For Detail

I had every intention of letting "Cheney Flag-gate" go uncommented upon as a non-story. Vice President Cheney went pheasant hunting at an exclusive preserve in Dutchess County, New York yesterday, and the hunt itself left only pheasants hitting the ground. It was a local interest story for the most part, until a sharp-eyed photographer and a self-promoting blowhard turned this local interest story into a national non-story when it was discovered that the inside of the back door of a garage at the hunt club was draped in a Confederate battle flag.

There is precisely no evidence that Cheney or anyone on his staff saw the flag, but that didn't keep the Daily News from running straight to Al Sharpton. The story ended in lots of hot air being spit by a man in love with the sound of his own voice, and many people fruitlessly wishing they had a way to somehow blame the Vice President.

I only mention this story at all because of the eye for detail it reveals in our media. Consider this a "teachable moment" for media fact-checkers.

Here is the flag photo, as captured by a Daily News photographer.

Note the detail the Daily News posted about the flag itself:

A Daily News photographer captured the 3-by-5 foot Dixie flag affixed to a door in the garage of the Clove Valley Gun and Rod Club in upstate Union Vale, N.Y.

Not to be outdone, Austin Fenner of the Post claimed:

But the veep only shot him self in the foot - by visiting the exclusive Clove Valley Rod & Gun Club in Union Vale, a sprawling preserve nestled along the western side of Clove Mountain, where a 5-foot-by-5-foot Confederate flag hung in a garage attached to the club headquarters.

Led by the tabloids, the Times "Cityroom" blog blindly follows, and ups the ante with a rather blatant embellishment:

Reporters who covered Mr. Cheney’s visit on Monday — including Fernanda Santos of The Times — were not permitted to enter the grounds of the hunting estate. But at least one eagle-eyed photographer captured images of a Confederate battle flag — about 3 feet by 5 feet in dimension — hanging in plain view in a garage attached to the club’s headquarters.

If it was in "plain view" as alleged, why didn't the Times' Fernanda Santos—or any other reporter or photographer than the one from the Daily News —notice it? Clearly, Sewell Chan had a much better view of the action from Manhattan.

But let's talk about the view for a moment, and about media accuracy. It is admittedly a small matter, but indicative of a greater pervading sloppiness.

Look at the picture again, and the descriptions. The Daily News and the Times puts the flag at "about" 3-by-5 foot in dimension, and the Post, inexplicably, determines the flag is 5-by-5 foot, proving that they failed rectangles and squares.

But before you laugh too much at the Post, make sure you include the Daily News and the Times, for they are far off the mark as well, as a little common sense would tell you.

Look back at that flag again.

Actually, look at the door.

When is the last time you saw an entry door that is 5-feet wide? This door is at most 36 inches wide, and many older buildings have rear garage doors commonly just 2'8" in width.

The flag, it would seem, is roughly half the size of that which the media claimed. This isn't malice, of course, just carelessness over the details.

The same sort of carelessness, however, gives us stories of brutal massacres that didn't happen. It gives us bullets that were never fired or never made. All of these stories are equally untrue because of reporters wanting to rush stories to print without getting the details right.

Speed to press will never save the print media. Bloggers will always be faster. The media must be more accurate, more diligent, and more credible. To date, they show little sign of learning this lesson.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:13 PM | Comments (50) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Advertising Age Picks Up TNR Advertisers Campaign

And I love the key line from AdAge's Ken Whelton:

Of course, the news here is that The New Republic still had advertisers!

Not, for long we hope, but that depends on you contacting TNR's advertisers.

This isn't a matter of "pro-war" versus "anti-war" as many have tried to frame this story, but a matter of right versus wrong, truth versus fiction, and media accountability versus editors run amuck.

So agrees Richard Peters, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, who stated of Beauchamp back in August that "People like him really get under my skin," and referred to the fabulist as a "loser." Peters may be on the opposite side of the war from I, but both of us agree that Beauchamp "spread elaborate lies."

We—and you—agree that obviously false stories such as those in "Shock Troops" harm the reputations of all soldiers, whether they are military veterans who have come to be against the conflict such as Peters, or they are currently-serving servicemen who want to see the mission through, or they are veterans who have served our country with honor in the past.

And so I say to you: Pick an advertiser, and respectfully ask them if the sick fantasies told in The New Republic and proven false by a formal military investigation are worth supporting with their ad dollars.

My guess is that advertisers can reach this same demographic by advertising through similar magazines that still support our troops.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:48 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 29, 2007

Project Valor-IT Under Way!

Today marks the start of Project Valor- IT, a yearly effort to raise funds to buy Voice-Activated Laptops for OUR Injured Troops (VALOUR- IT).

Any interested bloggers can join the effort on the team of your choice, and anyone interested in learning more about the project can read all about it.

And if you're ready to donate... we've got that covered here, as well. Click the widget, and chip in!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:24 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 28, 2007

A Point of Honor

Scott Beauchamp doesn't matter.

He's a twice-AWOL serial liar with a pending mental health evaluation who can't write believable military fiction EVEN WHILE IN THE MILITARY. He's powerless, has been tried, found guilty and punished, and at this point, a distraction. We've been focusing on the wrong things.

What matters is the New Republic's advertisers. No, not their editors, their advertisers.

We know that TNR allowed all three of Scott Beauchamp's stories to be published without being competently fact-checked, if fact-checked at all.

We know that the editors of TNR, led by Franklin Foer, lied when they said that the stories had been competently fact-checked, we know they deceived their readers and misled at least one civilian expert in an attempt to create a whitewash of an investigation.

We know The New Republic attempted to stonewall their way through obvious, blatant, and grievous breaches of journalistic ethics. In so doing, they have attacked the service, integrity, and honor of an entire company of American soldiers serving in a combat zone to avoid taking responsibility for their own editorial and ethical failures.

Foer will win the current game we're playing because he can stonewall his way though it. It is obvious his bosses don't care as long as it doesn't cost them money.

So we change the game.

Below are a list of recent advertisers that have placed ads with either the print edition of The New Republic or the web site tnr.com.

Alfred A. Knopf	Allstate	Amazon.com	American Gas Station
American Petroleum Institute	AstroZeneca (current issue)	Auto Alliance	Bearing Point (see below)
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (current issue)	BP (current issue)	Chevron (current issue)	CNN
FLAME (current issue)	Federal Express	The Financial Times	Focus Features
Ford Motor Company	Freddie Mac	GM	Grove Atlantic
HBO	Harvard University Press	History Channel	Hoover Institution (current issue)
MetLife	Microsoft	Mortage Bankers	Nuclear Energy Institute
The New School	New York Times	Novartis	Palgrave Macmillan (current issue)
Simon & Shuster	John Templeton Foundation (current issue)	University of Chicago Press	University Press of Kansas (current issue)
U.S. Telecom	Visa (current issue)	The Wall Street Journal	Warner Brothers
Warner Brothers Home Video	W.W. Norton	Wyeth Laboratories	Yale University Press (current issue)

I'd ask U.S. military veterans, military families, active duty personnel, and the vast majority of Americans who support our servicemen and women to call these companies, institutions and agencies to pull their advertising from TNR, effective immediately.

Advertising with The New Republic represents a tacit support of their on-going support of an obvious lie, a continuing, unapologetic assault on the reputation of an American Army unit presently deployed in combat.

Advertising in The New Republic sends a message that advertisers do not care about journalistic ethics, or what most would consider editorial fraud.

I would ask advertisers to pull all of their advertising from the print edition of The New Republic and tnr.com until the senior editors responsible for this debacle are disciplined, with those at the top resigning.

The New Republic doesn't have an obligation to support the troops, or support the war in Iraq. It does have an obligation to retract stories for which they can provide no support.

Canwest MediaWorks, the Canadian company that owns The New Republic, does not have an obligation to decide the editorial policies of The New Republic, but it does have an obligation to discipline all editors who have refused to act ethically, who have misled readers, and who have attacked the military for defending itself from proven falsehoods and gross exaggerations (email Canwest Global CFO John McGuire at jmaguire@canwest.com, and be polite but firm).

We cannot force The New Republic to behave honorably, but we can make their dishonesty come at a price.

Update: I just had a conversation with a friend who had been the target of a boycott, and I agree that the best way to address this is to respectfully ask advertisers to pull their advertising from TNR as a show of support for the troops. The post above has been edited to reflect that.

Update: Added Canwest's CFO email address (h/t Tara).

10/29 Update: Steve Lunceford, Director of Global Communications for Bearing Point, states that "I believe we haven't advertised with that publication in years." As they are not apparently an advertiser, I'm striking them from the list.

And yet, the New Republic has them on a list of " recent advetisers" according to their Media Kit (PDF).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:14 PM | Comments (91) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 27, 2007

I'm Sorry... Was That Supposed to be Journalism?

There are so many fact errors, hinted slurs and innuendoes piled into Tim Rutten's "Drudge, New Republic battle over 'Baghdad Diarist,' that reading it, you would think you were reading the L.A. Times... oh wait.

You were.

Without fisking every line, here is why Tim Rutten should never be mistaken for a journalist.

He described the ridicule of a disfigured Iraqi woman, attempts to run over stray dogs with Bradley fighting vehicles...

The burned woman has never be described as being an Iraqi... Rutten is the first. Nor were the claims in the Bradley stories described as mere attempt; there were three successful and grisly killings alleged by the author.

The magazine determined that the incident involving the disfigured woman was concocted and corrected that...

No, the editors of TNR did not admit that anecdote was "concocted." They shifted the story to another time, in another country, but still maintain that it occurred.

The Army's investigators refused to release details of their findings...

Under federal privacy laws, the details of administrative cases cannot be released without Beauchamp's permission. He has not yet authorized this release.

Since then, Beauchamp has remained in Iraq with his unit and the magazine has been unable to communicate with him.

Beauchamp has use of his personal cell phone and laptop computer, landline telephone, and may arrange formal interviews with any news outlet that wants to speak to him through the PAO system. He has made the choice not to talk to them, at TNR's explicit request.

Both the New Republic -- still unable to determine whether its story was true or false...

The editors of the New Republic have purposefully suppressed testimony provided them from many sources, suppressed the identities of the experts they've interviewed (military and civilian) to keep others from conducting follow-up interviews, and misled experts and misused their statements to create a whitewash of an investigation. They have only done so because they have been able to determine that they cannot support these stories honestly, and because they cannot support their previous claims that these stories and previous stories by this author had been throughly fact-checked prior to publication.

Far more interesting was the fact that within several hours, Drudge had, without explanation, removed the "exclusive" from his website. The item still can be found in the report's archives, but links to the documents have been disabled. No notice or explanation is appended to the archived item.

Why?

It's a fascinating question, but in the orgy of pro-war Internet comment that surged through the blogosphere, no one bothered to ask in any serious way why Drudge might have dropped an item of this consequence so quickly.

The Drudge Report, by design, adds, reorders, and removes stories after several hours and has done it this way for roughly a decade. To imply that a normal cycling of stories is evidence of some admission of wrongdoing is either ignorant, or purposefully dishonest. Further, considering the size of the documents (2.21 MB, 2.73 MB, 2.89 MB, respectively) and the amount of traffic the site normally receives, bandwidth considerations were the far more obvious reasons these files were removed as the story cycled off the front page.

There are questions to be asked, though you won't see them in the pro-war blogosphere:

* Who leaked the documents to Drudge and why, among all the documents the Army must have collected in this case, was one of them a transcript that could be used to put Foer and Scoblic in a bad light?

It is rather obvious who leaked the documents, at least in general terms, which contrary to Rutten’s ignorance, was published in a widely-read and linked article on September October 25 and on other blogs. The documents came from the military, though most likely outside those directly involved. A reading of the transcript shows what many consider strong-arm attempts by Foer and Scoblic not to retract his story, on at least one occasion alluding the the author's wife, who worked at The New Republic.

* Why did Drudge take the documents down and why hasn't he explained his reasons for doing so?

Answered above, with common sense and normal procedure.

* Why has the Army kept Beauchamp in Iraq where it can control access to him and he's beyond the reach of any other jurisdiction?

Beauchamp is a soldier assigned to a combat unit in Iraq, and Beauchamp chose to remain with his unit in Iraq when given the option of leaving the Army.

* Why hasn't the Army complied with the New Republic's FOI request?

We can start with the fact that The New Republic, by their own statements, did not do the rudimentary legwork necessary to file their FOIA request with the necessary FOIA office in the beginning, creating unnecessary delays.

Once filed with the proper office, FOIA requests to overseas combat zones have documents compiled, transmitted back to the United States, undergo legal review, and then are released, if it is deemed that the material asked for can be released. Depending on the information they have asked for, it is quite possible that releasing some or all of the information they seem most interested in may violate Beauchamp's privacy rights.

Not that Rutten bothered to interview anyone in the CENTCOM FOIA office, or ask TNR about the nature of the information they requested.

Who knew the Army was awash in such compassion?

Al Anbar province, for starters, but current events don't seem to be Rutten's strongpoint, either.

Why the attempt to shift attention off the alleged fabulist, Beauchamp, and onto the editors of the magazine, who after initially supporting the invasion, have turned decisively against the war?

A solider who lied in a series of stories and who has been punished for those lies is a minor story once he drops out of the public spotlight; a national magazine editors attempting to orchestrate a cover-up, smear critics, and then attempts to play the victim card? That's news.

Not that Tim Rutten is capable of finding any. There is a reason he writes for the L.A. Times.

He's not a capable enough journalist to hack it in the blogosphere.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:25 PM | Comments (60) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 26, 2007

The Never-Ending Story

Franklin Foer, Peter Scoblic, Jason Zengerle and other senior editors at The New Republic can't quite seem to get their hands on enough information to complete their investigation into the Scott Thomas Beauchamp "Shock Troops" story published in mid-July.

As someone who has had a bit of success in separating the facts from the fiction in this and other instances of questionable media content, I can offer them some free consulting advice to expedite their final report.

In yesterday's Washington Post interview with Howard Kurtz, Franklin Foer made the following claim:

Despite the contentious conversation, Foer continued to defend the article days later. He did so again yesterday, reiterating that other soldiers whom the magazine would not identify had confirmed the allegations.

While Beauchamp "didn't stand by his stories in that conversation, he didn't recant his stories," Foer said in an interview. "He obviously was under considerable duress during that conversation, with his commanding officer in the room with him."

We'll overlook the fact that his commanding officer was not in the room. We'll also overlook the fact that the enlisted squad leader actually sided with Foer and Scoblic in their argument that TNR should be allowed to control the narrative and cancel interviews with both Newsweek and the Post. And we'll overlook that the only obvious duress in the transcript was Foer using the emotional blackmail regarding Beauchamp's wife and the further strong-arm tactics of reminding Beauchamp that if he recanted, any future career of his as a writer is over.

We'll ignore all that for now, because want to get to the truth.

So let's focus on this part of the claim:

...reiterating that other soldiers whom the magazine would not identify had confirmed the allegations.

There are 58 pages of sworn statements currently under legal review at Central Command's FOIA Office in Tampa that seem to directly disagree with that assertion, so let's get the facts as we know them out in the open.

To date, The New Republic has been very vague about the specific claims of these anonymous soldiers, including how many soldiers support each allegation, what their relative positions are within the company or incident that puts them in a position to support their allegations and what, precisely, they said in support of their allegations. I think that it is quite reasonable for the editors to release the full claims, if not the names of the claimant.

In addition, specific questions about each anecdote need to be answered for these claims to be regarded as truthful.

The Burned Woman Claim
In relation to the "burned woman" story, where Beauchamp claims to have verbally abused the apparent survivor of an IED attack in a dining facility that the author claims was especially crowded at that time, readers deserve to know: what was the date of the assault?

We don't need the specific day, but a week-long range—say, the first week of May, or the last week of September—that we can then compare that against the records of every known civilian contractor and military serviceperson on that base at the time, if nesessary.

The magazine cannot find asking for that detail of their sources to be objectionable, if they do still in fact maintain that she is real. The formal military investigation interviewed seven of Beauchamp's fellow soldiers and friends (and lists their names), and states they have never seen such a woman.

As a result the official report concluded that this story is "a tale completely fabricated by Private Beauchamp." If Franklin Foer and the other editors of TNR wish to contend this story is in fact true, they need to provide specific evidence stating why they think it is true, starting with when this supposedly took place.

The Skull Story
The second anecdote in "Shock Troops," was the one that triggered the formal military investigation as it involved the alleged desecration of human remains by U.S. soldiers. The author wrote:

...And, eventually, we reached the bones. All children's bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades. We found pieces of hands and fingers. We found skull fragments. No one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here, but it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.

One private, infamous as a joker and troublemaker, found the top part of a human skull, which was almost perfectly preserved. It even had chunks of hair, which were stiff and matted down with dirt. He squealed as he placed it on his head like a crown. It was a perfect fit. As he marched around with the skull on his head, people dropped shovels and sandbags, folding in half with laughter. No one thought to tell him to stop. No one was disgusted. Me included.

The private wore the skull for the rest of the day and night. Even on a mission, he put his helmet over the skull. He observed that he was grateful his hair had just been cut--since it would make it easier to pick out the pieces of rotting flesh that were digging into his head.

The formal investigation relates a different reality.

Upon initial reconnaissance of the area that would become Combat Outpost Ellis, Captain Erik Pribyla reported seeing a "skull and what appeared to be a human femur" at the site. PFC Tracy King recovered the skull (I'd further note that in the wording of the report, the skull seems to be referred to as an intact skull, not fragments) and buried the remains with as much dignity as possible. The other bones recovered were apparently animal bones mixed in with household trash, and were "commonly found on Iraqi farmsteads in trash piles where they are dumped after a meal."

If Foer wishes to maintain that Beauchamp's anecdote is true and that his "other soldiers" support the claim, he needs to provide us with some concrete evidence that there were human remains recovered during the digging process.

To date, the only verified human bones near COP Ellis were those two found on the surface. As only a skull and femur were recovered, it would seem to suggest that they may have come from a body located elsewhere, perhaps the victim of sectarian violence. According to the report Beauchamp's sworn statement says he admits only seeing animal bones.

If The New Republic wants to continue insisting this story is accurate, perhaps they could start by having their soldiers explaining, in detail, how a soldier could wear "the top part of a human skull" under the form-fitting pads of MICH helmets while out on patrol without their squad leaders finding out.

The Bradley Story
Frankly, there is nothing at all that Foer's batch of anonymous corroborating soldiers could do to provide any credibility the dog-killing Bradley driver story. The geography of the land around COP Ellis, the handling characteristics of tracked vehicles, and the physics of the driver's visibility make this claim all but impossible. The editors of The New Republic even made a deceptive attempt to use an armored vehicle company expert to spin this claim, but that didn't turn out very well when he found out the whole story, which leads me to another point.

What About TNR's Other Hidden Experts?
In addition to the anonymous soldiers Franklin Foer claims still support the allegations made in "Shock Troops," TNR has still refused to name the civilian experts which the magazine claims provide technical arguments supporting the possibility that these allegations are true. As we found when we interviewed the Bradley Vehicle company spokesmen, it appears TNR asked purposefully vague questions, which led to predictably vague answers, which the New Republic then claimed as proof the stories were real.

As their civilian experts face no possible penalty from the military, it is incumbent upon Franklin Foer to reveal specifically what questions were asked of them, provide specifically what their answers are, and of course, tell us who these experts are.

And Yet...
Remarkably, even after the release of a formal, thoroughly-documented U.S. Army investigation two days ago which concludes the stories published in "Shock Troops" were false, and the release at the same time of a transcript that shows the author of the piece will not stand behind his story and wished to simply walk away from it seven weeks ago, the editors of The New Republic have not retracted the story, nor have they yet resigned.

What Could They Be Waiting On?
The answer is revealed in the transcript of the September 7 call, where Franklin Foer and Peter Scoblic repeatedly focus on getting the two sworn statements signed by Scott Beauchamp—to the point of conferencing in his TNR-appointed lawyer—to try to get Beauchamp to release them.

I'm not sure what Foer thinks he will find in those two sworn statements by Beauchamp that will carry more weight than the sworn statements of every other soldier interviewed during the course of the investigation that refute the allegations in "Shock Troops."

There is nothing in those statements that can vindicate The New Republic's utter lack of fact-checking this story prior to publication, and then deceiving their readership about this failure even as they are forced to shift a key "fact" to another country and time. Nor is there anything in Beauchamp's statement that can justify the attempt of TNR to unethically spin the testimony of experts that they apparently keep in the dark about the nature of the work for which they were being consulted.

Beauchamp's fiction was long ago superseded by the duplicity and unethical behavior of the senior editors of The New Republic.

Two sworn statements cannot erase that stain to the credibility of The New Republic that has been created by editors who refused to concede the reality that they uncritically allowed the publication of obvious fiction. Nor can these documents excuse the editorial failures and ethical breaches of the magazine's senior editors that seem rooted in their inablity to face valid questions brought about by some of their most vocal critics over differences of political ideology.

On September 7, Executive Editor Peter Scoblic asked Scott Beauchamp if he would object to The New Republic fully retracting not only "Shock Troops," but alsohis previous articles, "War Bonds," and "Dead of Night." Beauchamp did not object.

Exactly seven weeks later, the deceptions of the editors and author still remain unaddressed.

Update: "The Editors" of TNR have once again posted on the "Shock Troops" controversy, and they are still standing behind the story because they claim that Beauchamp called Franklin Foer at home two weeks after the recorded call and stood by everything:

The answer is simple: Since this controversy began, The New Republic’s sole objective has been to uncover the truth. As Scoblic said during the September 6 conversation: "[A]ll we want out of this, and the only way that it is going to end, is if we have the truth. And if it's—if it's certain parts of the story are bullshit, then we'll end that way. If it's proven to be true, it will end that way. But it's only going to end with the truth." The September 6 exchange was extremely frustrating; however, it was frustrating precisely because it did not add any new information to our investigation. Beauchamp's refusal to defend himself certainly raised serious doubts. That said, Beauchamp's words were being monitored: His squad leader was in the room as he spoke to us, as was a public affairs specialist, and it is now clear that the Army was recording the conversation for its files.

The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.

So if we are to beleive "The Editors," Scott Beauchamp called Franklin Foer at home two weeks after the transcribed call and claimed that he "continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted." That "inaccuracy," of course, being the placement of a woman that nobody else has ever seen in a different country (Kuwait) and time (pre-combat) than the country in which she had not been seen in previously (Iraq).

Sadly, this claimed conversation comes at a time when Beauchamp seemed to have rededicated himself to his fellow soldiers and has been making a concerted effort to re-earn their trust. If true, it would certainly damage the hopes his superior officers had of rehabilitating an already problematic Army career.

Update: Someone get Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger a stick. He's going to need it to scrape Franklin Foer off his shoe.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:29 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 25, 2007

Did I Mention Those Other TNR Investigation Documents?

My latest on the Beauchamp/TNR is up at Pajamas Media.

I'd also advise reading the latest from Michael Yon and Laughing Wolf at Blackfive. For all of his issues with the creative writing , Scott Beauchamp isn't the focus of this story any more, and more importantly, seems to be trying to earn back the trust of his fellow soldiers.

The New Republic, however, long ago ran out of second chances.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:19 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Never Ascribe to Malice What Ignorance Will Explain...

...though there is probably copious amounts of both in this commentary on The New Republic's handling of the Scott Beauchamp "Shock Troops" affair.

I'll be rather more kind to Mr. Sargent than he probably deserves.

There's been a very interesting turn in the saga of The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist," the American soldier in Iraq who's been accused of fabricating negative stories about U.S. troops and publishing them in the mag.

For those of you who haven't been following this story, the soldier, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, came under withering criticism a few months ago by conservative bloggers who alleged he'd made up the stories about the troops. The Army conducted an internal investigation into the affair and concluded he'd largely fabricated them. TNR has stuck by Beauchamp, demanding that the Army publicly reveal whatever documents it had supporting the probe's conclusion. The Army has refused.

Time, facts and federal law have conspired against The New Republic, none of which are the exclusive domain of the United States Army.

Many documents related to this investigation, such as the sworn statements signed by PV-1 Beauchamp and other soldiers interviewed, in addition to certain aspects of adminstrative investigations (which this was), are not releasable to the public except as authorized by the soldier who is the subject of the report or statement.

In plain English, Beauchamp could likely release some or all of this documentation, if he desired to do so. The Army cannot release the information the magazine has asked for without his permission as a matter of federal privacy laws.

Well, guess what -- the Army may not be willing to reveal its docs to TNR, the target of its investigation, but it has just acknowledged that someone internally has willingly leaked them to Matt Drudge.

This again calls into question the Army's handling of this affair in a big way. It's bad enough that the Army hasn't been willing to show any transparency with regard to its probe into this. It's worse still that someone -- apparently an Army official -- is leaking some of the probe docs to Drudge, likely as part of an effort to get back at TNR.

"The Army" is a tremendously large organization, with varying viewpoints and points of contact. The PAO most directly involved with the overall story, Major Kirk Luedeke, came out almost immediately and acknowledged that the leak was in fact an Army leak. The Central Command FOIA office which has these and other documents related to the investigation stated in a pair of phone calls this morning that they were unaware of the Drudge story and the associated fall-out until today, and seemed genuinely surprised these documents could have become part of the public record.

I have good reason to believe, but cannot confirm, that this was an operation that happened outside the proper chain of contact for these documents. Those who are more involved with the story that would have had access to these documents know that they are part of pending FOIA requests in their final stages of preparation and legal review. The disclosure of these documents, in the manner they were distributed, is actually detrimental to the truth of the matter, which favors the military.

The Army's acknowledgment of this leak comes in Howard Kurtz's article today about this whole affair. Kurtz was following an item that appeared yesterday on Drudge revealing some of the docs from the investigation. At the end of Kurtz's article comes this, concerning TNR editor Franklin Foer:

Foer said the Army has refused to turn over supporting documents in the case, despite a Freedom of Information Act request, and then "selectively leaked" material to Drudge. In an e-mail to the magazine yesterday, Army spokesman Maj. Kirk Luedeke said he was "surprised and appalled that this information was leaked" and that the military would investigate.

In other words, an Army spokesman basically acknowledged here that while they're not willing to reveal the docs supporting their case to TNR, which is the actual target of its probe, someone internally is willing to give some stuff to Drudge, almost certainly with the intent to carry out payback against the mag. I'm not necessarily defending TNR here -- as Kevin Drum notes, this remains murky -- but the bottom line is that this Army conduct stinks really, really badly.

A completely inaccurate assessment. Acknowledgement of the leaks was occurring almost as soon as the story aired on Drudge. Far from Sargent's assertion that the military is in the process of stonewalling TNR on one hand while carrying out a smear on the other, the Central Command FOIA request office has been nothing but courteous, responsive, and professional when I've checked in for status updates and made additions to my original FOIA request, which was submitted September 9.

A simple phone call from TNR to the Centcom FOIA office in Tampa would provide them with the status of their request, a fact Foer and Sargent either did not know, or chose not to reveal. It is again worth mentioning that the documents Franklin Foer has directly asked for, such as Beauchamp's statements, could easily be released by Beauchamp himself.

The conduct of those soldiers I've worked with has been one of utter professionalism, not partisanship. We cannot say the same for Foer, or in regards to getting the facts accurately represented in this post, Sargent.

Glenn Greenwald, with his own sordid history of misrepresenting the truth in regards to the military, likewise attacks the Army in a similar manner, using the same flawed premises.

Greenwald accuses the military of being an "increasingly politicized, Republican-controlled division of the right-wing noise machine."

Reality, however shows us that as far as this story is concerned, it seems that only bloggers are doing the job that most journalists won't do, such as sending emails, asking questions, and making phone calls to those involved in the still-developing story.

Perhaps if Greenwald exhibited some interest in doing actual journalism from time to time, or even getting his facts in order before opining, I would not find him so easy to dismiss.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:06 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 24, 2007

Boom: Drudge Scoops Docs to Sink TNR

Drudge scooped me (arrgghhh!) with two documents related to the Beauchamp/TNR story. I had asked for in a FOIA request submitted more than a month ago to the U.S. Army. Those documents including a transcript of the call between Scott Beauchamp, TNR editor Franklin Foer, and TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic on September 7. I first wrote about the conversation itself previously.

The other document was the Army's official report, which I first discussed with the investigating officer, Major John Cross, on September 10.

Knowing the documents exist is one thing; having them is quite another. Now that they have been posted on the public record, these disclosures should end careers at The New Republic.

Have at it:

Transcript, Part 1

Transcript, Part 2

Army Investigation

As always, Allahpundit is on top of the story over at Hot Air, so I'll send you over there for analysis until I can delve into the story again in more detail.

I would ask one question before I go, though:

Did Foer really get an email from Beauchamps' wife during the conference call, or was it merely the lie of a desperate editor trying futilely to save his job?

We know that Beauchamp had his cell phone and laptop returned to him after his op-sec violation investigation was over, which he could use every day when he was not working.

If Foer was bluffing, Beauchamp probably knew it in advance.

Update:A huge apology to Michael Goldfarb. If he hadn't had the sharp eyes to note probable fiction and ask for help from the blogosphere back in July, there is every possibility that Beauchamp's false narratives would have gone unchallenged as ""truth." The story started with Mike, and continues there today.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:54 PM | Comments (62) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

How It Ends

"We've won the war."

"The news out of Iraq just keeps getting worse."

Writing at his blog, Jules Crittenden, a Boston Herald editor and columnist notes the continuing failure of another media organization, the Associated Press, to also honestly deal with evolving conditions on the group in Iraq that have seen both Iraqi civilian deaths and U.S. military deaths drop in recent months.

In his new home at the Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett notes the plunging casualties:

The results of the surge, or "the escalation" as Harry Reid derisively called it, have been obvious in the Icasualties.org numbers. Before the surge, a bad month would claim the lives of roughly 3,000 Iraqi civilians and security force members. In February '07, the exact number was 3,014 Iraqi casualties. In March, the figure was 2,977. As the surge began to have its effects, that number dropped to 1674 in August. In September, with the surge taking full effect, the numbers showed a profound change--the Iraqi death toll plunged to 848.

Happily, September's figures don't appear to be an aberration. October has seen 502 Iraqi casualties so far. If the trend continues though the end of October, the final number should be around 650 for the entire month. That represents better than an 80 percent improvement from the war's nadir.

YOU'D THINK THIS would be a big story. After all, the mainstream media makes such a show of "supporting the troops" at every turn, you'd think it would rush to report the amazing story of our soldiers accomplishing what many observers declared "impossible" and "unwinnable" not so long ago.

But the mainstream media can't actually support the troops, can they?

Despite the onionskin-thin layers of nuance favored by those on the extreme edge of the progressive movement, the leadership (but not the rank and file) of the Democrat Party, and the editorial offices of many newsrooms, in real-life, supporting the troops really does mean supporting the mission.

The platitude of those that claim "we support the troops, but not the war," is an empty one; analogous to claiming that they support doctors, but not practicing medicine on certain patients even if they have the same disease.

"Iraqis? No. Why don't you go treat those people in Darfur instead..."

And so we get stories like the latest from AP’s Steven R. Hurst noted by Crittenden, where every possible silver lining is discarded in worship of the cloud.

We get editors that would rather torpedo their careers than admit they were wrong.

We get columnists that refuse to concede to hope.

And of course, we get faked massacres, fauxtography, gross inaccuracies, false premises, buried stories and preferrential treatment for fellow defeatists, all because those multiple layers of reporters, fact-checkers, and editors are determined to craft a message that they can be comfortable with publishing, that echoes their values and their beliefs of how the world should work.

In that world, a bumbling, semi-articulate President with approval ratings in the 30s, that has made on mistake after another related to the war, simply cannot be in charge when we win a war that they do not support, because of him.

As they have told us repeatedly: This. Is. Bush's. War.

They might be able to do a better job moderating their disdain for the military if it was simply run by the right POTUS; just preferably not a simpering idiot from Texas, or at least not a Republican one.

But as much as he is detested in newsrooms and dining rooms across America, George W. Bush is the President of the United States, and because of this unpalatable fact, it is simply unfathomable to the media and theri supporters on the fringe left that General Petraeus and the soldiers under him could shift strategies to take advantage of and exploit shifting public opinions in Iraq to execute a counterinsurgency doctrine that has Sunni and Shia joining forces with the U.S. and Iraqi security forces to stamp out criminal gangs, insurgents, rogue militias, and terrorists at what seems like an exponential rate.

We find ourselves in late October of 2007 with a war that, while not "over" in terms of ending all violence and all terror attacks, is "over" in that there is little doubt who the winner of the conflict will be.

There will not be a sectarian ""civil war" in Iraq, perhaps best evidenced by the fact that the media—excuse me, actual reporters in Iraq, not plaintive Times editorialists—have quietly let the claim die. Just as quietly, they have stopped wondering if Iraqi security forces will be able to hold together, and instead focus on corruption in the higher ranks.

At the present rate, the only way the media could shift goalposts faster is if the crane moving the goalposts was attached to Jeff Gordon's stock car.

While the opinion of the Iraqi people has drastically changed in past months and they seem to see the outcome being decided in their favor and sooner rather than later, the world media, led by the U.S. media, is refusing to acknowledge the possibility that the outcome of the war (if not the end of the counterinsurgency effort) may be decided before President Bush leaves office, making him the victor.

While the security forces of Iraq and allied nations seem to be turning/defeating the insurgency in Iraq, we are having considerably less success fighting an insurgent media that refuses to yield ground—unless forced every step of the way—by what they consider an unpleasant reality. The dead-enders of the Iraqi insurgency will likely meet their end via a bullet from Iraqi soldiers, policemen, or the growing number of civilians styled as "concerned citizens."

Some of the insurgent media is being "killed off" in rather spectacular blaze of glory, and some dead-ender media companies may one day collapse utterly for being unwilling to change. That admitted, most journalists, if for no other reason than their personal bottom lines, will eventually begrudgingly admit success, or at least change the subject.

Like the terrorists our soldiers fight, the biased media doesn’t have to like being defeated. Sometimes "winning hearts and minds" amounts to just beating them enough to take the fight out of them and focus their efforts elsewhere, which is already occurring on newspaper front pages.

This is the way "Bush's War" will end in the media: not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:35 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 23, 2007

Pole-Vaulting Sharks

Not content with just jumping sharks, Think Progress is now going for big air:

Limbaugh calls female MSNBC anchor 'wifey' and 'whiney.'
MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough had on right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh to "talk about the Republican field." But Limbaugh quickly interjected and said he first had a comment about CNBC business analyst Erin Burnett: "I just heard Erin Burnett sounding a little wifey." Scarborough laughed and asked Burnett, "What do you think about Rush saying you're a little wifey today?" "Wifey today he said?" Burnett asked, confused. "Well you were whining," Rush explained.

Perhaps not surprisingly, others had a far different opinion of the comments made by Limbaugh, with TVNewser noting that "Rush Limbaugh Gushes Over Erin Burnett," and presents a slightly different and more expansive quote:

Scarborough: Let's talk about the Republican field… Limbaugh: Wait a minute, Joe. Before you go there, I have to say something. I heard Erin Burnett sounding a little wifey, Erin, you said you're gonna be listening. I love listening to myself, but it's great to know you're listening to me too. Nobody can big foot you, Erin... Burnett: I got bigfooted out, that's what happened Rush. Limbaugh: The truth is that anybody that follows you, Erin, can't match what you've done. Burnett: Thank you, Rush. Scarborough: That is big. Getting that from Mr. Excellence in Broadcasting right there. Burnett: You made my day. I'm done now, I'm going home.

Obviously, the TVNewser account tells quite a different story than that of Think Progress.

Which account is more accurate?

Ian Shwartz has the video that provides the answer.

Few people were ever under the impression that Think Progress was anything other than a left-leaning political muckraker's site, but their continuing assault this fall on conservatives, using comments ripped out of context to the point of dishonesty, has now become so bad that even fans of the site will be tempted to go elsewhere to get to the factual roots of the story that TP is spinning for political consumption.

There comes a point where a politically-motivated site can move so far beyond the bounds of rational criticism, and even beyond the much more lenient bands of spin, that it becomes essentially untrustworthy. Think Progress is perilously close to that point, and runs the distinct risk of becoming the next Truthout.org if they don't clean their act up soon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:49 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Pink and Grey

Scott Lindlaw reports on the differences between the current wildfire evacuation to Qualcomm stadium and the scene in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:

Like Hurricane Katrina evacuees two years earlier in New Orleans, thousands of people rousted by natural disaster fled to the NFL stadium here, waiting out the calamity and worrying about their homes.

The similarities ended there, as an almost festive atmosphere reigned at Qualcomm Stadium.

Bands belted out rock 'n' roll, lavish buffets served gourmet entrees, and massage therapists helped relieve the stress for those forced to flee their homes because of wildfires.

"The people are happy. They have everything here," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared Monday night after his second Qualcomm tour.

Although anxieties ran high, the misery index seemed low as the celebrity governor waded through the mob. Scarcely a complaint was registered with him.

Predictably, the completely different ways these cities are dealing with their disasters only needed the common point of a stadium refuge to set keyboards a-clattering from both the left and the right.

At right-leaning Liberty Pundit:

Because these are mostly white people, and the response has been supposedly better, you can better believe that people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have taken note and will trot this out in the future whenever it suits their purpose. They’ll say that because these are white people and the governor is a Republican (jury is still out on that), and this was a better response, then it proves that our party hates blacks (or whatever minority they want to use to serve their purpose). Nevermind that the failures of Katrina were mostly the result of incompetent Democrats in New Orleans, it was still all George W. Bush's fault, because he didn't personally land in New Orleans and start bailing water.

At lefty blog Attytood:

Still, I can't help but think that other nations must look at these things -- the treatment of evacuees in one of America's richest cities (at least by housing price), and in one of its poorest -- and conclude that we're some kind of barbarians. The contrast between the wealth of water and food at Qualcomm, pictured at top of this post, with the scarcity at the Superdome is outrageous.

My biggest quibble with this AP article is the headline about "civility" -- which implies the contrast is the fault of the evacuees. That myth was pretty much punctured after Katrina, as in this article:

The vast majority of reported atrocities committed by evacuees — mass murders, rapes and beatings — have turned out to be false, or at least unsupported by any evidence, according to key military, law-enforcement, medical and civilian officials in positions to know. "I think 99 percent of it is [expletive]," said Sgt. 1st Class Jason Lachney, who played a key role in security and humanitarian work inside the Dome. "Don't get me wrong — bad things happened. But I didn't see any killing and raping and cutting of throats or anything ... 99 percent of the people in the Dome were very well-behaved."

They just weren't given food or water...let alone massage therapists. You have to be haunted by these words from Superdome survivor Phyllis Johnson, written shortly after Katrina and well before yesterday's evacuation:

Johnson said many of the people she met inside the dome thought they were going to die there. But she didn't want to lay down and die. She escaped the shelter, slogged through chest-high water and finally caught a ride on a stolen truck. She ended up getting onto a bus headed for Houston.

Even though President Bush said today that race played no part in the botched evacuation efforts, Johnson strongly disagrees. She is sure that if the people who were stranded in New Orleans after the storm were white, they would have been rescued immediately and treated with dignity.

"They portrayed us as savages," she said.

How can you look at that picture up top from San Diego and not agree with Phyllis Johnson?

It's interesting that on both the right and the left, the natural inclination here was to make the issue one of color. The problem with both of these opinions is that they are predicated upon skin colors of black and white, and not one of tribal colors:

That has nothing to do with me being white. If the blacks and Hispanics and Jews and gays that I work with and associate with were there with me, it would have been that much better. That’s because the people I associate with – my Tribe – consists not of blacks and whites and gays and Hispanics and Asians, but of individuals who do not rape, murder, or steal. My Tribe consists of people who know that sometimes bad things happen, and that these instances are opportunities to show ourselves what we are made of. My people go into burning buildings. My Tribe consists of organizers and self-starters, proud and self-reliant people who do not need to be told what to do in a crisis. My Tribe is not fearless; they are something better. They are courageous. My Tribe is honorable, and decent, and kind, and inventive. My Tribe knows how to give orders, and how to follow them. My Tribe knows enough about how the world works to figure out ways to boil water, ration food, repair structures, build and maintain makeshift latrines, and care for the wounded and the dead with respect and compassion.

There are some things my Tribe is not good at at all. My Tribe doesn't make excuses. My Tribe will analyze failure and assign blame, but that is to make sure that we do better next time, and we never, ever waste valuable energy and time doing so while people are still in danger. My Tribe says, and in their heart completely believes that it's the other guy that's the hero. My Tribe does not believe that a single Man can cause, prevent or steer Hurricanes, and my Tribe does not and has never made someone else responsible for their own safety, and that of their loved ones.

My Tribe doesn't fire on people risking their lives, coming to help us. My Tribe doesn't curse such people because they arrived on Day Four, when we felt they should have been here before breakfast on Day One. We are grateful, not to say indebted, that they have come at all. My Tribe can't eat Nike's and we don't know how to feed seven by boiling a wide-screen TV. My Tribe doesn't give a sweet God Damn about what color the looters are, or what color the rescuers are, because we can plainly see before our very eyes that both those Tribes have colors enough to cover everyone in glory or in shame. My Tribe doesn't see black and white skins. My Tribe only sees black and white hats, and the hat we choose to wear is the most personal decision we can make.

That’s the other thing, too – the most important thing. My Tribe thinks that while you are born into a Tribe, you do not have to stay there. Good people can join bad Tribes, and bad people can choose good ones. My Tribe thinks you choose your Tribe. That, more than anything, is what makes my Tribe unique.

[snip]

Let's not talk about Black and White tribes… I know too many pathetic, hateful, racists and more decent, capable and kind people of both colors for that to make any sense at all. Do you not? Do you not know corrupt, ignorant, violent people, both black and white, to cure you of this elementary idiocy? Have you not met and talked and laughed with people who were funny, decent, upright, honest and honorable of every shade so that the very idea of racial politics should just seem like a desperate and divisive and just plain evil tactic to hold power?

If such a thing is not self-evident to you, please get off my property. Right now. I should tell you I own a gun and I know how to use it. I assure you that the pleasure I would take in shooting you would be temporary, minimal, and deeply regretted later.

Now, for the rest of you, let’s get past Republican and Democrat, Red and Blue, too. Let’s talk about these two Tribes: Pink, the color of bunny ears, and Grey, the color of a mechanical pencil lead.

I live in both worlds. In entertainment, everything is Pink, the color of Angelyne's Stingray – it's exciting and dynamic and glamorous. I'm also a pilot, and I know honest-to-God rocket scientists, and combat flight crews and Special Ops guys -- stone-cold Grey, all of them -- and am proud and deeply honored to call them my friends.

The Pink Tribe is all about feeling good: feeling good about yourself! Sexually, emotionally, artistically – nothing is off limits, nothing is forbidden, convention is fossilized insanity and everybody gets to do their own thing without regard to consequences, reality, or natural law. We all have our own reality – one small personal reality is called "science," say – and we Make Our Own Luck and we Visualize Good Things and There Are No Coincidences and Everything Happens for a Reason and You Can Be Whatever You Want to Be and we all have Special Psychic Powers and if something Bad should happen it's because Someone Bad Made It Happen. A Spell, perhaps.

The Pink Tribe motto, in fact, is the ultimate Zen Koan, the sound of one hand clapping: EVERYBODY IS SPECIAL.

Then, in the other corner, there is the Grey Tribe – the grey of reinforced concrete. This is a Tribe where emotion is repressed because Emotion Clouds Judgment. This is the world of Quadratic Equations and Stress Risers and Loads Torsional, Compressive and Tensile, a place where Reality Can Ruin Your Best Day, the place where Murphy mercilessly picks off the Weak and the Incompetent, where the Speed Limit is 186,282.36 miles per second, where every bridge has a Failure Load and levees come in 50 year, 100 year and 1000 Year Flood Flavors.

The Grey Tribe motto is, near as I can tell, THINGS BREAK SOMETIMES AND PLEASE DON’T LET IT BE MY BRIDGE.

These paragraphs are from just a few brief moments of the excellent Bill Whittle essay Tribes, but it does much to help us understand the long-term differences between these two vastly different cities, and how different they will be in the weeks and months ahead.

The people of San Deigo and surrounding communities, liberal Democrats, moderates, and staunch conservatives of every color and creed, will rebuild and thrive again long before New Orleans does. They will do so because New Orleans, "The Big Easy," regardless of politics, is as Pink a city as there has ever been in the United States. It is a city of psychological poverty, and will be so until it finally falls into the Gulf in 5 or 50 years hence.

San Diego, evolving both demographically and politically, is often Pink, but is as Grey has it has to be, when it has to be.

It is about color. Just not the colors you think.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:50 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Re-tell News

I was rather amused by some of the comments made by bloggers and commenters from the community-based reality yesterday in response to Michael Yon's Resistance is Futile. Many seemed eager to dismiss Yon as a partisan with an agenda, or dismissed his work as anecdotal in nature only.

In their minds, it is obvious that wire services, network and cable television news channels and major newspapers are providing "better" and "more accurate" news out of Iraq than embedded journalist-bloggers such as Yon, Totten, Roggio, Aradolino, Emanuel, and Johannes.

Those that would continually downplay the accounts from these citizen-journalists make the argument that these men are only reporting anecdotes of what they see with their own eyes, and therefore cannot be trusted to present "the big picture."

Really?

With all of the citizen-journalists listed above, you are typically getting first-hand reports from people at the scene of the news. With a few notable exceptions, you will not get that from most western news agencies operating in Iraq.

When you see a story by a Western reporter bylined in Baghdad, in the overwhelming supermajority of instances you are not getting a firsthand account of what he or she saw. Wire services and news agencies send out local Iraqi reporters called "stringers" that have unknown allegiances, alliances, competencies, and track records, to do the field work of reporting. They take (and occasionally stage) pictures, talk to witnesses (or make them up), and compose a rough account of the events (or completely fabricate them) for the agency they work for. These stringers then turn over the rough-draft information to "reporters" who write news accounts on events they have not witnessed, relying on information they often cannot verify.

This is the normal state of affairs of media reporting in Iraq. Those who have their names on many stories aren't reporters, they're essentially transcriptionists who have very little idea at all if the stories they report are true, or just "truthy."

So you tell me who is providing the better news: is it the guy relating what he can see, or the guy relaying a story he can't verify?

Now consider the fact that the "big picture" so many rely on is built out of hundreds of accounts where some or all of the information being presented as the truth is uncorroborated or unverified by the writer with his name on the byline, and you start to understand how there can be such a huge discrepancy between what citizen-journalists and soldiers blogging from Iraq see, and what the "professionals" relay in our media outlets.

The dirty truth of modern mass-market journalism is that it is retail news, and re-told news, and often anything but reporting.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:59 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 22, 2007

"Stonewall" Wasn't Just the Name of a General

Franklin Foer continues to erode the credibility of The New Republic as he refuses to address the Scott Thomas Beauchamp "Shock Troops" scandal, which started out as series of questions about the veracity of anecdotes told by an anonymous soldier, but has now developed into a desperate bid by TNR's editors to stonewall their way through mounting evidence that they orchestrated an ill-conceived cover-up of their own editorial failures.

All three of the anecdotes told under the pseudonym "Scott Thomas" in "Shock Troops" have been debunked by a combination of civilian contractor testimony, military veteran testimony, subject matter experts, and a formal U.S. Army investigation that spoke to every relevant soldier in the author's unit, only to come away without so much as a single corroborating account.

There was no "burned woman" at FOB Falcon that was abused by the author as a result of the horrors of battle he'd seen, which undermined the entire premise of the article. TNR sought to spin this as a trivial matter, even as it moved the location of this dark fantasy from FOB Falcon in Iraq after the author had been in combat and seen the horrors of war, to a staging camp in Kuwait before he had ever seen battle.

Instead of posting an immediate retraction, of course, TNR continued to slog on, even though it was quickly determine that there was no burned woman at the base in Kuwait, either, which was relayed to TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle, who was told the story was a rumor or "urban legand [sic]." Zengerle was told this well in advance of the August 10 story that has become the last word from TNR on the subject. Zengerle declined to tell his readers that this story was an urban legend. No one yet has come forward to say that they have seen such a woman, probably because she does not exist.

The second claim, that soldiers discovered human remains in what was described as a Saddam Hussein-era dump during the creation of Combat Outpost (COP) Ellis, and that one soldier wore part of a child's skull, was the anecdote in "Shock Troops" that was the single greatest concern in the formal military investigation, as told by the investigating officer, Major John Cross. Veterans, active duty soldiers, and civilians alike were dubious that someone would wear rotting human flesh directly against their skin for any length of time, much less the hours-long period told in this tale. Veterans familiar with the design of the close-fitting helmet flatly denied it was possible to even put such material between the wearer's head and the helmet. In the end, the formal investigation could find not a single member of Beauchamp's unit that would corroborate this story, which the author himself apparently refuses to support.

The third and perhaps the most outlandish claim, of a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV: a kind of tracked and armed armored personnel carrier with a crew of three) driver who used his vehicle to smash infrastructure and run over dogs, was one of the easiest stories to debunk, and one that also showed just how deceptive the editors of The New Republic were willing to be in continuing with their charade.

Veteran APC and IFV crewmen, including commanders and drivers, quickly discounted the possibility that the driver in the author's fantasy could make the Bradley do what he claimed; it simply wasn't designed in a way to move as he said it moved. Every single Bradley driver and and commander in his unit was interviewed during the course of the Army investigation, and all said the account was false.

But the depths of how far The New Republic was willing to go to deceive their readers was exposed when one of the anonymous experts the magazine claimed had supported their version of events in the Bradley story was found, and told a quite different story, indeed.

This morning at Powerline, Scott John keeps the pressur eon the dishonest and deceptive editors of The New Republic with It's the coverup that kills you, part 3.

We now know that TNR editor Franklin Foer and executive editor Peter Scoblic spoke with Scott Beauchamp on September 7. Dogged blogger Bob Owens learned of the call from an Army spokesman. Why have "the editors" not disclosed the substance of their conversation with Beauchamp?

In their conversation with Beauchamp, Beauchamp must not have provided Foer and Scoblic a single fact with which to substantiate his "Shock troops" column. Six weeks after speaking with Beauchamp "the editors" have not addressed the report that Beauchamp recanted his column in the course of the Army investigation of its allegations. And commanding officer Colonel Ricky Gibbs has since confirmed that report.

In their September 7 phone call with Beauchamp, Foer and Scoblic asked their author to cancel interviews he had scheduled with the Washington Post and Newsweek. Again, they seem to think that stonewalling will allow them to ride out the scandal. They must be counting on the kindness of their friends in the MSM to cooperate. And to date their confidence has not been disappointed.

Upon taking the reins of TNR, editor Franklin Foer declared: "My priority is to put out the most intellectually provocative, intellectually honest magazine possible." Foer's aspiration for TNR now reads like a piece of black humor.

Far from intellectual honesty, the senior editor staff of The New Republic have proven their intractable corruption. Editor Franklin Foer, Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic, and Senior Editor Jason Zengerle failed to do their jobs as editors, published a false story (though there are indications that all three of the author's stories were fabricated, in whole or in part), more than likely lied when they claimed the allegations made had been fact-checked prior to publication, and then ran a false investigation that involved misrepresenting the claims of at least one expert, while attempting to bury the story and exerting influence over the author to cancel interviews with other interested publications.

As Ed Morrissey notes today of a previous TNR scandal:

Near the end of Shattered Glass, Peter Sarsgaard as editor Charles Lane (now at the Washington Post) scolds Chloe Sevigny as Caitlin Avey after she keeps making excuses for Stephen Glass. "He handed us fiction after fiction and we printed them all as fact. Just because... we found him "entertaining." It's indefensible. Don't you know that?"

TNR knew it in 1998. Unfortunately, they no longer understand it in 2007. It's just as indefensible now as it was then -- in fact, given their history, even more indefensible now. Franklin Foer has managed to do more damage to the magazine than Stephen Glass did, thanks to an inept response and continued stonewalling in the face of the truth. In their silence, TNR has acknowledged that they care more for narrative than fact.

Details will continue to trickle out revealing just how deceptive the editorial staff at The New Republic has been to its readership and critics alike, and once those details are made public, I very much doubt that Franklin Foer, Peter Scoblic, and Jason Zengerle will be able to survive the coming purge.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:34 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Yon: Looking For A Few Good Readers

Michael Yon has his latest dispatch posted, blasting the current state of media affairs: Resistance is futile: You will be (mis)informed.

He begins:

No thinking person would look at last year’s weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors. This view allows our soldiers two possible roles: either “victim caught in the crossfire” or “referee between warring parties.” Neither, rightly, is tolerable to the American or British public.

He does, however, have in mind a solution:

Clearly, a majority of Americans believe the current set of outdated fallacies passed around mainstream media like watered down drinks at happy hour. Why wouldn't they? The cloned copy they get comes from the same sources that list the specials at the local grocery store, and the hours and locations of polling places for town elections. These same news sources print obituaries and birth announcements, give play-by-play for local high school sports, and chronicle all the painful details of the latest celebrity to fall from grace.

To illustrate the absurdity to which this conceit of the collective has grown, I'm tempted to borrow from the boy in the fairy tale, only this time pointing to and shouting at the doomsday-sayers parading by: "Hey, they aren’t wearing any clothes. . . . " Except in this case, I realize I am not a lone voice. Furthermore, with the help of other clear-eyed individuals, I may actually be in a unique position to do something to remedy this, if the experience I had with the AP response to my challenge to investigate and report on the disturbing gravesites in the Al Hamira village is any guide.

Although I can't answer to the cause of the problem, I humbly offer permission to media outlets to republish excerpts of the dispatch or the dispatch in its entirety, including my photographs from the story (if used as they are in the dispatch) at no cost during the month of July 2007. I only ask that the site receive proper attribution and that any publication taking me up on the offer email the website with the details.

That offer was dying on the vine until Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee took the Associated Press to task for their bungled reportage of a different mass graves news story, using my dispatch as a comparison. Although it took a little back and forth, and some additional pressure from all the other bloggers who started tracking on the topic, the AP finally dispatched a reporter to the scene. The resulting article was picked up by at least one other major media outlet, reaching thousands more people. This got me to thinking: what if I made a similar offer on a more permanent basis to a large media syndication, say, the National Newspaper Association?

And so Yon is going to syndicate his text and images, for free to get real, frontline stories of the war to the American people, doing the job that Americans the Manhattan and Washington, DC-based professional media won't do.

But it will take your help to make sure that your local paper newspapers take advantage of the offer.

Those readers can first check to see if their local paper is a member of the NNA . Because only NNA members will be able to

" . . . print excerpts of Michael Yon's dispatches, including up to two of his photographs from each dispatch. Online excerpts may use up to 8 paragraphs, use 1-3 photos, and then link back to the full dispatch on his site saying 'To continue reading, click here.'"

If their local paper is a member of NNA, readers can contact the editor, urging their participation. [If Bob Owens' experience is a reliable indicator, this might take several, uh, prompts.] By encouraging their local daily or weekly newspapers to reprint these dispatches in their print editions, more people without internet access can begin to see a more accurate reflection of the progress I have observed and chronicled in dispatches like "Achievements of the Heart," "7 Rules: 1 Oath," "The Hands of God," and "Three Marks on the Horizon."

In addition to making his work available to your local papers through the NAA, Yon is rebuilding his web site, and having it translated into a total of 17 languages, so that though people in nations where English isn't their primary language can get information from a source a bit less biased than Reuters, AP, AFP, or their state-run media.

None of this, of course, comes without a price. Click on over, and see what you can do to help fight the media war.

We can gripe about how poor and deceptive the media coverage in Iraq is, or we can do something about it. The choice is yours.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:19 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 19, 2007

ABC News Credits Dems for Limbaugh Fundraiser; Reporter Botches Mission of MC-LEF Due to Laziness

Don Surber does an excellent job of reminding us why Americans have so little faith in the media:

Why do people absolutely detest the media? Is it the laziness? Is it the incompetence? Is it the bias?

This report from the ABC News blog shows all 3 elements. The headline: ”Bidding Over $2M for Dems Anti-Rush Letter”

It is not until Paragraph 7 that ABC bothers to mention that Rush put the letter on eBay.

As Matt Drudge correctly pointed ABC was crediting the perpetrators instead of the victim, Rush. That letter was not written to raise money — it was written to get a man fired for broadcasting opinions that 41 Democratic Senators wanted censured. He dares to support a war that a Democratic Senate authorized in 2002.

[snip]

Now ABC credits these anti-constitutional senators with the $4.2 million Rush raised — half of it from his own pocket.

Not one of those 41 senators — all of whom enjoy salaries that place them in the top 3% of the country — has matched that gift with 21 cents, let alone the $2.1 million Rush will give.

ABC News knows what it can do with its blog entry.

Perhaps not surprisingly, crediting Democrats for something they didn't do isn't the only display of bias and incompetence in this ABC blog entry.

The content of the seventh paragraph shows that ABC didn't even both to do the basic research necessary about the charity benefiting from Limbaugh's fundraiser:

All proceeds from the auction of the letter will go to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, which distributes aid to the families to the children of fallen Marines on behalf of law enforcement officers.

First--and this is just a pet peeve of mine-- all of Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation should be in the link. That's just sloppy, amateur work.

Second, the content of the ABC News claim is inaccurate. ABC claims that MC-LEF "distributes aid to the families to the children of fallen Marines on behalf of law enforcement officers."

It would have taken reading all of seven sentences to get the basic mission of the foundation right:

The recent war in Iraq has certainly illuminated America�s commitment to freedom. We are reminded that freedom is not free. The price is great. No one knows that better than the left-behind sons and daughters of America�s fallen heroes.

Through the continuous support of our donors, we have distributed aid with a value of more than $29,000,000.00 to eligible children. This assistance was primarily rendered to children of Marines or Federal law enforcement personnel who were killed on duty or died under extraordinary circumstances while serving our country at home or abroad.

It would have taken ABC News perhaps 10-15 seconds to read that far.

Apparently ABC News felt that it wasn't worth spending those extra 10-15 seconds to get even one fact of their story correct.

Update: ABC is also censoring comments on the blog (mine, among others) for content that is anything other than profane, simply rewriting or deleting comments they do not like on apparent whims.

The former gatekeepers do not like to be told that they are wrong.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:01 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

On Victory in Iraq

Thoughts from Greyhawk on the Iraq War, from 100 feet over Baghdad:

...I've been writing about Iraq here for four years now - in and out of country. I've been here during many of the most violent months of the war; from the second battle for Fallujah through the January, 2005 elections, and from the launch of the surge to the present - and I'm not homebound yet. In all that time progress has been achingly slow, and back steps have been mixed with forward - but never the majority. Throughout it all - until now - I've never declared victory, seen "light at the end of the tunnel", or even claimed to have "turned a corner" - you can take your bumper sticker slogans and shove 'em. Over here a tenacious and bloodthirsty enemy has fought a well-designed and multi-faceted campaign against us, perhaps secure in the knowledge that blame for every child they killed or each holy place they defiled would be shifted to us even as they washed the blood from their hands. Their efforts gained support from many quarters (not all of which were anticipated in preparation for or included in response to their actions) and condemnation from few. But the ranks of their opponents - at least here in Iraq - are large and still growing, and theirs are neither. The battles are diminishing but ongoing, losses will be suffered, and blood will still be shed. Still more of their supporters may redouble their efforts. But in short, while I recognize this will provoke immeasurable rage from those who feel we've lost, and consternation among those who know we've won but lack the fortitude to make the declaration at this point in time, I'll say it again: we've won the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:45 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Rhodes' Trip

Air America host Randi Rhodes is back on the air, sort of explaining the circumstances that cause her dental work to intersect with the local infrastructure.

Listen for yourself.

You'll note very clearly and distinctly that one of the first things Rhodes said was that her hands did not break her fall. That's odd.

There is a quirk is the physiology and the psychology of conscious human beings that compels most of us to put out our hands to break a fall.Most of us know people who've suffered abrasions, lacerations, sprains, or even fractured bones in their hands as a result of a fall.

That Rhodes states so clearly that her hands didn't even begin to break her fall suggests that she fell while losing consciousness, or after she had already lost consciousness. That Rhodes will not reveal whether or not she had been drinking in the pub prior to her fall (at Gawker, a commenter alleges she had, and how), and that she readily admits to not have eaten that day, certainly seems to make a loss of consciousness both the most logical reason for her fall, and the most logical explanation of why she did not follow the quite normal human tendency of sticking out her hands to protect herself from impacting the ground.

Frankly, I could care less over the cause of Rhodes slipping into unconsciousness, providing of course it wasn't the source of a serious underlying medical condition (regardless of political differences, she is a fellow human being and I bear her no ill will). Whether she had been drinking or not on an empty stomach really matters very little.

What is of greater concern is her apparent need to immediately spin this cause-undetermined blackout into an assault with a two-line email in which she says she had been mugged.

That she almost immediately fabricated a dramatic excuse instead of merely stating what she actually knew about the incident should raise character issues about Ms. Rhodes. If she would lie so easily about this matter, it should cause Air America listeners to wonder just how cavalierly she is willing to dismiss the truth or manipulate facts on the air to deliver to a more entertaining story for her listeners.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:27 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Huffing Wolf Challenge

Naomi Wolf has her latest pre-packaged "Bush is going to overthrow the Constitution and install himself as dictator with the help of Blackwater" stem-winder posted on the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington's menagerie of Who's Who in the DSM IV.

Wolf, true American patriot that she is, is criss-crossing these United States in a desperate bid to roll back the forces of Halliburton and the Illuminati, no doubt speaking with the same great oratory and care with the facts that we've come to expect from the Empress of Earth Tones.

She has all the answers to save this great nation from the plague of Bush, and writes with a truthfulness and accuracy that we haven't seen in over seven years... which can be your's for just $11.16 (You save $2.79).

Clearly, freedom comes with a price, but it wasn't until now that I realized it also comes with FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.

"But wait, there's more!"

But what if she's wrong? What if--God forbid--she's profiteering from fears of overthrown liberty that may never be?

And therein lies the question, and well-deserved suspicion.

Is Naomi Wolf truly convinced that we have a grave constitutional crisis on our hands, that America about to succumb to dictatorial forces, and that only a book tour can save us? Or is Wolf cynically using the fears of the paranoid fringe to make a profit, filling her own coffers as a digital revivalist charlatan, ministering to those with more money than sense?

We could find out rather easily, I should think.

If Wolf truly believes what she writes, then she must believe that George W. Bush (the head of the American Nazi party she constantly alludes to, but never specifically names) will attempt to overthrow the country and establish himself a Hitleresque dictatorial figure by January 20, 2009, the day the next President of the United States is sworn into office (it would be kind of hard to do it after a new President is installed, after all).

If Wolf is sincere, she and others like her will no doubt be rounded up and shipped off to internment camps run by Michelle Malkin shortly after that date, soon to be fired in massive ovens run by a cigar-chomping Rush Limbaugh. No money she has saved, and none of her earthly possessions will mean a thing to her as her ashes waft in the breeze.

BUT...

What if Wolf is just peddling fear for profit? Shouldn't she be held accountable?

And so a modest challenge that an honest Wolf can easily meet.

If Wolf is honest and sincere about what she writes and the overwhelming majority of the United States continues to ignore her as a kook as they do now, then she'll be too dead to enjoy the money she's made selling her book to the lunatic convergence of Ron Paul supporters, truthers, and Indymedia conspiracy theorists.

"Now how much would you pay?"

But if she's merely been profiteering from fear, as I suspect she has been, then it only seems fair she should pay a price for her deception. Being the magnanimous person that I am and a capitalist, I won't ask her to return a dime to the suckers she's conned.

They, you see, need to be taught a lesson, too.

No, I propose a simple, cost-free solution: a promise from Wolf that if her fear-mongering goes for naught and the next President is sworn into office on January 20, 2009 without a coup d'état, that she will never write again in her current paranoia-outlet-of-choice, The Huffington Post.

The terms should be simple to enforce: if Wolf is right, Arianna Huffington will be rediscovering her conservative roots and swinging The Huffington Post to the right of David Horowitz's FrontPage Mag and will no longer in need of Wolf's services, and if Wolf is wrong and President Bush and his imaginary brownshirts shuffle off to Crawford, then the beautiful Ms. Huffington will still be mistress of her own quite successful domain, if a bit editorially top-heavy on end-of-the-republic-as-we-know-it conspiracy theorists, and needing to cut weight.

It's a simple challenge, really: Naomi Wolf should put her soapbox where her mouth is.

Somehow, though, I doubt she's up to even that mild challenge.

It might cut into her chances to market her next book, How President ________ Is Carving Up America's Soul With a Ginsu Knife.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (42) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.5624 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.5088 seconds, 544 records returned.
Page size 451 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.