In the same post, she tells her readers that Smith’s reporting is, shall we say, nuanced. “While Smith vouches for his sources, we cannot independently verify what they told him. That’s why we’re revisiting the posts in question and warning readers to take them with a grain of salt.” A grain of salt? It speaks to the corrupt intellectualism Lopez is employing here (representing a publication that was the home of so much anti-TNR venom during the Beauchamp affair), that she now advises her readers to treat the falsehoods NRO has published as something merely to be taken with a grain of salt. This is capped off beautifully when Lopez later wrote that Smith is “a smart, reliable reporter with a great patriotic spirit and sense of service.” While he may be smart, patriotic and service-oriented, she would have done herself a favor by leaving “reliable reporter” out of the mix.
- 1
- 2
So, McCleary is taking NRO to school for publishing reports form a correspondent that have turned out to not be “verified” (or worse, may not even be true), and with a bit of viciousness to boot I see! Good for you Paul, it looks like your diligence for good reporting, accountability, and journalistic integrity, key qualifications for the gold standard of journalism that CJR personifies, has once again trumped the “right wing machine”!
But what’s that you write in the opening paragraph, TNR has been caught in some unnamed scandal too? Get out of here … that’s impossible, because according to blogging you previously did on this, the TNR stories were only “partially discredited” … why the change in tune now?
And why the complete 180 treatment of the two stories? In all your writing about Beauchamp before, you spent almost all of your time attacking TNR’s critics, with some of the most childlike rants I have had the displeasure to read I might add, and almost no time actually dealing with the substance of their arguments .. namely that Foer and TNR were less diligent with Beauchamp because he was telling them what they wanted to hear. So why the kid gloves treatment for your buddy Foer and the verbal waterboarding for NRO? Why spend all your time attacking TNR and Beauchamp’s critics when writing about that, but now spend all your time hammering away at NRO?
Was NRO’s factcheker married to Smith, like TNR’s factchecker was married to Beauchamp, a cleat conflict of interest? Is NRO’s managing editor stonewalling like Franklin Foer was? Has NRO taken retribution on anyone who has been talking about this story, like the way TNR fired the individual who leaked Beauchamp and Reeves marital status?
Am I the only one who sees a bit of a discrepancy in the way McCleary has represented these two similar stories? You see, behavior like this might leave some readers thinking that you are a hack, and you wouldn’t want that would you?
Posted by TDC![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Tue 4 Dec 2007 at 11:15 AM
TDC, the answer to your first rhetorical question . . .
But what’s that you write in the opening paragraph, TNR has been caught in some unnamed scandal too?
is simply a case on Paul’s part of modified mendacity. As long as Franklin Foer was stonewalling, Paul was not going to demonstrate any measure of intellectual honesty by challenging what everyone knew -- that Scott Beauchamp was a utter liar. Instead, he defended TNR, Foer, and Beauchamp by gamely and inexcusably minimizing the matter, including calling TNR's critics "childish."
Nor will Paul now point out that the offense at TNR was a serious repeat offense of fabulism, or that it was particularly egregious because the stories served to undermine the very troops that Scott was serving with. Unlike Paul, some of us do care about those who are voluntarily putting their lives on the line in the service of our country. We don’t like seeing them put in danger or demeaned by haters back here.
And, Paul minimized another key difference; that as soon as they found out about it the folks at NRO responded by examining the matter and making it public, marking a significant distinction from the reaction at TNR.
Franklin Foer still has not come clean, by the way, even after months and months.
All of these things, and all of the items you mentioned, TDC -- the retribution, the wife as fact-checker, the initial hole in the story that should have alerted TNR to back down all together -- should have been included in any fair compare and contrast piece by a responsible journalist.
But Paul's motivation here is to continue the anti-American ideological struggle he and the left, including Franklin Foer, are so heavily invested in. They seem particularly incensed now that the tide of battle has turned, and that we are now openly routing the Islamist extremists in Iraq, including al-Qaeda, because it means that cooler heads indeed prevailed.
Paul finished here with an attack on the way Katheryn Lopez handled her mea culpa by stating that her response "speaks to the corrupt intellectualism" of attacking Beauchamp and TNR, while minimizing the log in their own eye.
Paul, is that not precisely what you did with this very piece -- beginning with an "oh, by the way," aside comment about your ideological partners at TNR, having never once taken them to task lo these many months of their stonewalling?
It's not very convincing to attack someone for actions that you yourself employ in making the attack!
Posted by Trochilus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Tue 4 Dec 2007 at 02:28 PM
I wont go as far as to say Paul doesn’t care about the people Beauchamp's stories hurt, he just can come to admit that his friend at the "respected" TNR, Franklin Foer published garbage and stonewalled when he was questioned about it. In fact, McCleary just repeated the tactics, attacking anyone who raised a question about Beauchamp's writings, and refused to comment on any of the substance, most importantly that the fact checker was the writers wife.
And then, if that wasnt bad enough, McCleary repeated verbatim the same ill treatment that he accused TNR's detractors of with Smith.
I guess Paul just borrowed a page from Victor Navasky's playbook for this one. Its good to see his influence is sitting so well with the CJR's watchdog brand of journalist.
Posted by TDC![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Tue 4 Dec 2007 at 06:18 PM