Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
No, I asked whether they were getting as "exercised." Clearly, they are less upset that the guy made up a 5,000-man Hezbollah invasion than they are that Beauchamp mocked a way at a base in Kuwait, not Iraq.

That nearly all of them immediately criticized NRO - again, the exact opposite approach of the left viz Beauchamp - is evidence that they care more about the truth than protecting one of their own.

And, quite frankly, exaggerating the number of Hezbollah soldiers is hardly the same as Beauchamp's grotesque branding of American soliders in the field as some reprehensible ghouls - especially given the way such inflammatory lies have been used in the past as enemy propaganda.

Why exactly should the reaction be similar?

Anywhere you like. Take his latest. Where are the lies?

How about misrepresentations and omissions? Is that better?

Bob Owens had a nice summation:

---

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/12/the_...es_to_come.php

It takes him fourteen pages, but Franklin Foer finally makes an admission regarding Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s posts in The New Republic.

"…in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories."

Foer’s opus begins 13 pages earlier and attempts the impossible feat of justifying his editorial leadership at The New Republic from the lead up to the publication of Beauchamp’s work to the retraction above. Through it all, Franklin Foer has made it painfully apparent that he is incapable of admitting his own ethical and editorial shortcomings, and refuses to answer many of the key questions that still hang over The New Republic like a gallows.

Foer’s first admission is that Elspeth Reeve, Scott Beauchamp’s wife, was indeed assigned by Foer to be the fact-checker for “Shock Troops” - a clear conflict of interest that Foer finally admits over four months after the fact. It was apparently a breach severe enough to merit new fact-checking rules at The New Republic.

Foer tells us of an anonymous soldiers claim that the story of the burned woman is true, but offers no specific evidence of this. So far no one has provided a name to identify her or offered any identifiable details about her.

Tellingly, no soldiers in other units who have been through Camp Blurring in Kuwait report they have seen her. Indeed, they and civilian contractors have denied her existence. It seems that no one stating these stories are true will comment on the record, with the exception of one man that Foer was forced to admit the "Army had removed him from Iraq on mental health grounds."

Foer continues to ignore the words of Major Renee D. Russo, the Kuwait-based officer who told TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle that the burned woman story was an urban myth or legend in early August.

Foer also does not really respond to remarks by "the spokesman for the manufacturer of Bradley Fighting Vehicles"
Choosing his words carefully, Foer states that "Nothing in our conversations with them had dissuaded us of the plausibility of Beauchamp’s pieces." Foer, of course, said our conversations.

Foer still does not admit that TNR’s questions to Doug Coffey, spokesman of BAE Systems, the Bradley manufacturer, were vague to the point of uselessness. Foer also refuses to release the names of the other anonymous experts, including a forensic anthropologist, he claims support the story. It seems he does not want these experts to discuss the quality of the interviews they conducted.

Perhaps keeping in line with the "it wasn’t my fault" mindset driving his statement, Foer attacks many of those who required proof of Beauchamp’s stories, from a snide and frankly irrelevant reference to one critic’s past as an adult film star, to attacks upon other publications, and insinuations of a great, widespread conspiracy against him by the U.S. Army from the urban battlegrounds of Iraq to the FOIA offices in sunny Florida.

Here are the facts:

As editor of The New Republic, Franklin Foer allowed Scott Thomas Beauchamp to publish three stories that were not competently fact-checked. At least one of those that was assigned to his wife to fact-check even though that was a clear conflict of interest. All three of those stories—not just"ShockTroops"— had significant “red flags” in them. These red flags range from the changing of a tire of a vehicle equipped with run-flat tires in "War Bonds," to several obvious and easily verifiable untrue statements, including the claim of a discovery of a kind of ammunition that do not exist, and absurd evidence for allegations of murder "Dead of Night" that could have been (and were) debunked in less than 30 seconds with a simple Google search.

The bottom line is that the Scott Beauchamp debacle was a test of editorial character for The New Republic under Franklin Foer’s leadership. For over four months, the magazine has answered that challenge by hiding behind anonymous sources, making personal attacks against critics, asserting a a massive conspiracy against them, while covering up conflicting testimony and refusing to answer the hard questions.

Even to the end, Foer continues to blame everyone else for his continuing editorial failures., penning a fourteen-page excuse without a single, "I’m sorry."

The readers and staff deserve better, and it is past time for Franklin Foer to leave The New Republic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
That nearly all of them immediately criticized NRO - again, the exact opposite approach of the left viz Beauchamp - is evidence that they care more about the truth than protecting one of their own.

You are out to lunch. "The left" hates the New Republic, because TNR often seems more interested in whacking those to its left than those to its right. Who on "the left" took "the exact opposite approach"?

And, like you, many wingers seem interested in absolving K-Lo in your criticisms.

And, quite frankly, exaggerating the number of Hezbollah soldiers is hardly the same as Beauchamp's grotesque branding of American soliders in the field as some reprehensible ghouls - especially given the way such inflammatory lies have been used in the past as enemy propaganda.

Quite frankly, he didn't "exaggerate the number of Hezbollah soldiers" -- he made up all sorts of shit from whole cloth.

And you seem to have missed the point of Beauchamp's piece. Try reading it again.

How about misrepresentations and omissions? Is that better?

Bob Owens had a nice summation:

---

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/12/the_...es_to_come.php

It takes him fourteen pages, but Franklin Foer finally makes an admission regarding Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s posts in The New Republic.

"…in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories."

Foer’s opus begins 13 pages earlier and attempts the impossible feat of justifying his editorial leadership at The New Republic from the lead up to the publication of Beauchamp’s work to the retraction above. Through it all, Franklin Foer has made it painfully apparent that he is incapable of admitting his own ethical and editorial shortcomings, and refuses to answer many of the key questions that still hang over The New Republic like a gallows.

Foer’s first admission is that Elspeth Reeve, Scott Beauchamp’s wife, was indeed assigned by Foer to be the fact-checker for “Shock Troops” - a clear conflict of interest that Foer finally admits over four months after the fact. It was apparently a breach severe enough to merit new fact-checking rules at The New Republic.

Foer tells us of an anonymous soldiers claim that the story of the burned woman is true, but offers no specific evidence of this. So far no one has provided a name to identify her or offered any identifiable details about her.

Tellingly, no soldiers in other units who have been through Camp Blurring in Kuwait report they have seen her. Indeed, they and civilian contractors have denied her existence. It seems that no one stating these stories are true will comment on the record, with the exception of one man that Foer was forced to admit the "Army had removed him from Iraq on mental health grounds."

Foer continues to ignore the words of Major Renee D. Russo, the Kuwait-based officer who told TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle that the burned woman story was an urban myth or legend in early August.

Foer also does not really respond to remarks by "the spokesman for the manufacturer of Bradley Fighting Vehicles"
Choosing his words carefully, Foer states that "Nothing in our conversations with them had dissuaded us of the plausibility of Beauchamp’s pieces." Foer, of course, said our conversations.

Foer still does not admit that TNR’s questions to Doug Coffey, spokesman of BAE Systems, the Bradley manufacturer, were vague to the point of uselessness. Foer also refuses to release the names of the other anonymous experts, including a forensic anthropologist, he claims support the story. It seems he does not want these experts to discuss the quality of the interviews they conducted.

Perhaps keeping in line with the "it wasn’t my fault" mindset driving his statement, Foer attacks many of those who required proof of Beauchamp’s stories, from a snide and frankly irrelevant reference to one critic’s past as an adult film star, to attacks upon other publications, and insinuations of a great, widespread conspiracy against him by the U.S. Army from the urban battlegrounds of Iraq to the FOIA offices in sunny Florida.

Here are the facts:

As editor of The New Republic, Franklin Foer allowed Scott Thomas Beauchamp to publish three stories that were not competently fact-checked. At least one of those that was assigned to his wife to fact-check even though that was a clear conflict of interest. All three of those stories—not just"ShockTroops"— had significant “red flags” in them. These red flags range from the changing of a tire of a vehicle equipped with run-flat tires in "War Bonds," to several obvious and easily verifiable untrue statements, including the claim of a discovery of a kind of ammunition that do not exist, and absurd evidence for allegations of murder "Dead of Night" that could have been (and were) debunked in less than 30 seconds with a simple Google search.

The bottom line is that the Scott Beauchamp debacle was a test of editorial character for The New Republic under Franklin Foer’s leadership. For over four months, the magazine has answered that challenge by hiding behind anonymous sources, making personal attacks against critics, asserting a a massive conspiracy against them, while covering up conflicting testimony and refusing to answer the hard questions.

Even to the end, Foer continues to blame everyone else for his continuing editorial failures., penning a fourteen-page excuse without a single, "I’m sorry."

The readers and staff deserve better, and it is past time for Franklin Foer to leave The New Republic.

You agree with that but don't think K-Lo should be canned? Amazing.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are out to lunch.

Mmmmmm. Lunch.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You are out to lunch.

You sound like a 4 year old - covering his/her ears screaming "la la la" to drown out the unfortunate reality around him/her.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Except that it has proven in Iraq that Iraqi/Arab/Palestinian stringers have repeatedly lied and gotten the likes of Reuters, AP and AFP all in trouble.

So I ask you this - should a statement, even if somehow "racist" on its face, be criticized as such if accurate?

This is too sweeping a generalization, and therefore a problem. Just like saying something like "Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair have both lied, and gotten the NYT and Post in trouble, and therefore all blacks are liars."

If the point was that the accusers of this guy (I'm not following the story) have a political reason to not be taken a face value, that's one thing --- but if the defense was "well, the Arabs are all liars," that is different and wrong.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Bob
This is too sweeping a generalization, and therefore a problem. Just like saying something like "Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair have both lied, and gotten the NYT and Post in trouble, and therefore all blacks are liars."

If the point was that the accusers of this guy (I'm not following the story) have a political reason to not be taken a face value, that's one thing --- but if the defense was "well, the Arabs are all liars," that is different and wrong.

Bingo.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are out to lunch. "The left" hates the New Republic, because TNR often seems more interested in whacking those to its left than those to its right. Who on "the left" took "the exact opposite approach"?

And, like you, many wingers seem interested in absolving K-Lo in your criticisms.



Quite frankly, he didn't "exaggerate the number of Hezbollah soldiers" -- he made up all sorts of shit from whole cloth.

And you seem to have missed the point of Beauchamp's piece. Try reading it again.



You agree with that but don't think K-Lo should be canned? Amazing.

You see - Slave has problems because TNR screwed up the fact checking. Conservative rags don't check facts, so they can't screw up.

Have you watched Fox lately?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well, regarding Bush, there's no perception issue. He is a liar in regard to many things, including just about everything having to do with Iraq.

But Clinton lied about sex, so Bush lying about Iraq doesn't matter.

[Apologies to Slave for taking his post.]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So the FBI finally nabbed a Democratic party predator. Of course, he's just a staff, not an elected official, and Cantwell fired him faster than you can say "Mark Foley".

Come on, Rs, you've been looking for this one for almost twenty years. Jump on it!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So the FBI finally nabbed a Democratic party predator. Of course, he's just a staff, not an elected official, and Cantwell fired him faster than you can say "Mark Foley".

Come on, Rs, you've been looking for this one for almost twenty years. Jump on it!

This seems knee-jerky, not your post, your post is just your typical jerky, but the firing based solely upon an allegation, especially an allegation in an area that is potentially the subject of mis-interpretation, and also an allegation form the anti-gay bush justice department. does Cantwell hate all gay people, or just those that are alleged as talking to 16 year old kids?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
For the record, I don't care about either.

I think that this should be a board motto.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Bob
If the point was that the accusers of this guy (I'm not following the story) have a political reason to not be taken a face value, that's one thing --- but if the defense was "well, the Arabs are all liars," that is different and wrong.

I'm not a big K-Lo fan to begin with, but no, she didn't say that.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You see - Slave has problems because TNR screwed up the fact checking. Conservative rags don't check facts, so they can't screw up.

Have you watched Fox lately?

Um, Beauchamp completely made up stories and then TNR had hiswife purportedly fact check them.

But hey, why admit inconvenient facts.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm not a big K-Lo fan to begin with, but no, she didn't say that.

OK. Because I am sure that Marc Anthony would be very disappointed if his wife, the mother of his future . . . uh, what? K-Lo, not J-Lo? Who the hell is that?

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=692024

Can we get GGG arrested for his southern man sock?