National Review Making Things Up, Naughty Naughty!

[Lemur]

This is only amusing because the NRO has come down so hard on others for lapses of journalism. They're a prime purveyor, in fact, of the meme about the unreliable media. So it's kinda hilarious that they've been caught playing the fiction game.

First, an apology from the reporter (http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDdkYzYyODZmY2ZjZjU2Yjc0Mjg2MzUxMWUxOWQ2MjM=). The original (fictional) posts have been scrubbed, apparently.

Then an editor's note (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmI4NzI5ZmRhZGMxZDg5MzUzNWZkZWFhYzExOThjMzU) about the controversial story.

Best summation I've read (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012613.php): "As near as I can tell, the problem is that he made some pretty dramatic claims about Hezbollah activity that were couched as eyewitness reports, when in reality they were based on quick automobile drive-bys combined with tips from anonymous sources"

There's also a rather amusing blog-spat about it here (http://davidbkenner.com/2007/12/mr_smith_goes_to_beirut.html). As this journalist writes:


Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Lebanon knows that these events didn't happen. So who fed Mr. Smith this bogus news? According to him, they are "reliable sources within the Cedar Revolution movement, as well as insiders within the Lebanese national security apparatus." None of whom, apparently, are willing to go on the record. Mr. Smith says this is because they need to preserve their safety. Very well. Let me suggest a different explanation. There are plenty of people willing to feed a naive journalist fake news; there is nobody willing to risk their reputations by going on the record with blatant lies. If 4,000 - 5,000 Hezbollah foot soldiers really did deploy to Christian areas of Beirut in September, Lebanon would be tumbling over the precipice into civil war. Christian politicians and security experts would be screaming from the rooftops, not making off the record statements to one foreign journalist/blogger.

To quote that eminent journalist, Borat Sagdiyev, "This is a Usman, he is town rapist! Naughty naughty!"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well at least they've acknowledged their error and apologized for it, after it was brought to their attention. Rather unhypocritical.

Heck, you only know of it because National Review fessed up.

And where did you read the original posts have been scrubbed? :inquisitive: Because they haven't; the first was linked to in the sixth word of the second paragraph of the apology:
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGRkZDFmMGFiODFjZTI0ODQzNTg4NjVkMjUyOTZhNDM=

The other one is linked later on in his apology.
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzUzMDFmZmU5ZGZhNDZhMzIwNmY3OWU2NTMyM2IwNTc=

Please, do tell exactly the source of your amusement; who has NRO come down on recently for lapses of journalism?

Could it be the head hack at TNR (http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/12/the_new_republic_tries_to_come.php), who after five months of intense scrutiny about malicious and false stories concede "we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them." ? [This after 14 pages with no apology]

Seems an interesting juxtaposition, considering the distinct stories by NRO and TNR, and how each dealt with accusations of falseness.

CR

[Lemur]

Yeah, NR was at the forefront of attacking that Beauchamp guy. And the fellow who led the charge was none other than Smith, who now appears to be a fabulist himself. Takes one to know one, eh?

[Tribesman]

Hold on , you have this source from a country that is backing one faction that portrays the other faction in a bad light ...and the news is ?????
Oh yeah the news is it was shown well after the events ....yay

[AntiochusIII]

Well at least they've acknowledged their error and apologized for it, after it was brought to their attention. Rather unhypocritical.So, like, you were accusing that NYT was bias in that other thread and in this thread you excused the National Review despite the fact that the latter actually did lie and make things up...?

:inquisitive:

[Blodrast]

So, like, you were accusing that NYT was bias in that other thread and in this thread you excused the National Review despite the fact that the latter actually did lie and make things up...?

:inquisitive:

Tsk, NYT is biased the wrong way.~;)

[Crazed Rabbit]

So, like, you were accusing that NYT was bias in that other thread and in this thread you excused the National Review despite the fact that the latter actually did lie and make things up...?

:inquisitive:

One person in the 'staff' did - and NRO corrected themselves. It's the effective self policing that makes me go more lenient on them. For fun, you could google 'Jason Blair' and 'New York Times' to see how long it took the NYT to correct a much bigger issue.

CR

[Vladimir]

Oh dear, biased reporters, fictions news stories? What kind of ANIMALS are we? What happened to the good old days when people cared naught but for truth, justice, and the American way? This can only herald dire times ahead of us. Next we'll hear that photographs are being intentionally altered, fabricated, or staged to advance one's agenda.

Woe that this day be ours! :furious3:

[Husar]

Good post Vladimir, what happened to the good old days when the only news you got from far away were brought by a merchant months after it happened and noone cared really cared anyway? :sweatdrop:

[PanzerJaeger]

For fun, you could google 'Jason Blair'...

Among others...

[Lemur]

A full-time Lebanon journo spot-checks the collected work of NR's Smith and gives it an F.

Not Knowing Shi'ite from Shinola (http://thehumanprovince.blogspot.com/2007/12/not-knowing-shi-from-shinola.html)

Naughty, naughty!

[Tribesman]

One person in the 'staff' did - and NRO corrected themselves. It's the effective self policing that makes me go more lenient on them.
Bollox , it is your agreement with their views that makes you go more lenient on them , they tried defending what they had published , they published artices defending what they had published , the self-policing only kicked in when what they had published and what they had defended was undeniably shown to be false . If their self policing had been effective as you claim it was the false reporting would have been pulled when it was first questioned (pending review) .


see how long it took the NYT to correct a much bigger issue.

Pointing out the fault of another sorce which you condemn does not make actions of the source that you like any more justifiable .
Condemn both or condemn neither , to do otherwise is just an example of hyporitical bias that you do seem to rail on about lately
(unless it is gun nut weekly who are unquestionably bastions of even handed non biased articles) .:2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

:rolleyes: @ tribesy

Any proof?



Pointing out the fault of another sorce which you condemn does not make actions of the source that you like any more justifiable .

I'll be sure to save that quote for later, since you do seem to love doing the same thing so very much. :beam:

Oh, and I was responding to someone who specifically asked me about NYT. :2thumbsup:



(unless it is gun nut weekly who are unquestionably bastions of even handed non biased articles)

Do tell where I quoted a gun magazine, much less called it unbiased. :inquisitive:

CR

[Lemur]

NRO's Thomas Smith (http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWZmZGM5NWVhNzFhNTQ1ZjhlM2VkNzBmYWFmNTM0MmQ=) goes the way of Jayson Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair), Stephen Glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass), Doris Goodwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Goodwin), Julie Amparano (http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=303), R. Foster Winans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Foster_Winans), Janet Cooke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Cooke) and Bob Greene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Greene).

Welcome to the Disgraced Journalists' Club.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is my own decision. No one at NRO has asked me to do this, nor has anyone suggested or even hinted I should.

I certainly hope he's just saying that..