Letters to the Editor
-
Foer's long overdue confession (from Newsbusters):
It took fourteen pages -- 13 of those geared towards Franklin' Foer's attempt to keep his job -- but here's the punchline:
"When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, 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."
Pathetic.
-
I think I'm in love
Sorry but I couldn't help smiling the whole time I was reading. Not because of the subject matter, but because I couldn't help but think that you (with an assist from the blogosphere) are going to take down every dishonest, corrupt, lying, pseudo-journalist on the Right. Eventually
Good for you. Because that's exactly how it's done, one day and one post at a time. God bless the internet.
-
stay in love. no read.
Be baby sat...
-
Virtue001:
Thanks for proving the point. This post was about National Review, yet you can only write about your religious crusade against TNR. Do you have anything to say about NR? Specifically, you call TNR's refusal to stand by Beauchamp's story "pathetic."
Has NR refused to stand by Smith's story? Foer disclosed every detail of what TNR learned in its investigation. NR hasn't. Will they? Should they? Do you have anything to say about that?
-
URGENT - Terrorist Army Invading Atlanta By Tens of Thousands
URGENT — URGENT — URGENT — URGENT — URGENT — URGENT
I have just observed a terrorist army which is flooding into downtown Atlanta, Georgia, by the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. It appears they are heavily armed and are well equipped for a permanent occupation. Our worst fears have been realized.
May God help us all.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Correction: Upon observing the traffic patterns of Interstates 85 and 75 this morning, I observed thousands of vehicles, and made the hasty and at the time completely justified (in my view) judgment call that the vehicles were full of armed terrorists on their way to a violent invasion and occupation. I have since been informed that there are always vehicles traveling on these interstates, many of them filled with perfectly non-terrorist individuals, groups, and families traveling between homes and places of ‘work’ or ’shopping’ or worship, and I never saw actual “arms” as such but since I was not able to peer into the interiors of all these vehicles I made the logical assumption that arms caches were present.
I stand by my earlier report, albeit amended as such. Thank you.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7996.html#comment-348167
-
Thank you Miss Lopez
K-Lo puts a Gold Star for Participation on Smith's forehead:
"Smith did commendable work in Lebanon earlier this year"; "I thank Smith . . "
Now if she can get him to just stop eating paste.
-
Smith had an unimpeachable source
Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI).
-
Corrections and disclaimers
Whenever I read a correction as lame and as vague as this one from the NR, or when I read a disclaimer in a book or movie credits that it's "based on a true story," I immediately conclude the entire tale is fiction. All of it. Period. Smith is roughly as believable and historically accurate as Oliver Stone.
That being said, an event like the TNR/Beauchamp controversy gives the NR--and the rest of the right leaning 'journalistic' world--a free pass (in their minds) to pass off fictional stories as the truth for at least 18 months.
-
The Answer is NO
Will attention be paid to this obviously serious -- and quite representative -- episode of journalistic fabrication by National Review?
NO
simple answers to simple questions
by another Atrios clone (someone had to do it)
-
Is it 1984 yet?
Thank-you for another great take down of these lying hypocrites. The hallmark of the rethuglicans is certainly their ability to project isn't it?
Keep hammering away Glenn - we are with you all the way!
-
Bob Owens: we are not done, we must have Franklin Foer's head on a platter!
And -- in stark contrast to the transparent efforts of Franklin Foer to investigate and disclose what he learned..~GG
But that is hardly enough to satisfy Foer’s critics. Bob Owens said on his site that “Franklin Foer said nothing to justify keeping his job.”
And then on Pajamas Media, he concluded:
“The readers and staff deserve better, and it is past time for Franklin Foer to leave The New Republic.”
So, they still want Franklin Foer’s head a platter to soon be displayed as a “trophy” mounted on their walls of yet another “kill” by fearless citizen journalists, fighting the good fight against inaccurate reporting.
There will be no such “hunt” against The National Review of course. Inaccurate reporting that benefits their ideology doesn’t concern them.
http://tinyurl.com/2hgago
-
we need more bears
If there was a god, two bears would come out of the woods and devour the National Review staff, just like they did with Elisha's mockers.
-
Buh-bye, Franklin Foer.
I hear they're hiring over at the Bulls**t Gazzette.
-
Another Greenwald Cocktail
It's a good thing Glenn doesn't need to eat and sleep much-- unless he's lashed himself to his chair with his mouse cable, and is surrounded by heaps of punctured cans of Ensure and unemptied slop buckets.
Alas! This story will be limited to a damp fizzle by the corporate media, which is designed to suppress incendiary truths-- incendiary to itself, that is. I can't blame them for being skittish-- when one's "profession" consists of dealing from the bottom of the deck to build a house of cards and tell the Yahoo masses what's trump, the slightest spark of unfavorable factual and clear information risks a catastrophic conflagration.
So keep tossing those Greewald Cocktails, Glenn!
-
"Inaccurate reporting that benefits their ideology doesn’t concern them."
Wrong.
It's their whole reason for being.
-
Virtue 001
What baffles me about those of you who keep hammering on Beauchamp and Rathergate is that you have completely failed in both cases to prove that the information was fraudulent. You have found one documented inaccuracy in Beauchamp's accounts -- namely, the time and place of an incident he described about mocking a disfigured woman -- but on the other hand, TNR has found independent verification for the other anecdotes. In the meantime, the army cracked down on Beauchamp and demanded that he issue a "retraction," which I find about as factually convincing as a confession at a Stalin show trial. Meanwhile, Dan Rather is suing CBS for its treatment of him. The memos that he showed in the course of his story may or may not have been fakes, although you still haven't proved that they were, but the fact that Bush did not fulfill his National Guard duties is abundantly documented, as is the obviously preferential treatment he received before, during and after his "service."
Basically, you guys have settled on a predictable formula. Any story that in any way embarrasses the pro-war, pro-Bush crowd is immediately attacked as fraudulent, and then you demand that the other side prove a negative, which as we all know is impossible. Meanwhile, as Greenwald points out, National Review prints brazen lies, knowing that the liberal press is too busy answering all of their baseless accusations of "forgeries" to confront the right's big-lie tactics.