Media Mythbusters Blog

Cross-posted at Confederate Yankee:

I don’t normally read Jonathan Chait and know little about him. I don’t know what role he normally plays at The New Republic, or what role he may or may not have played in the magazine’s latest fabulism scandal.

What I do know of Chait is that his attack on William Kristol this morning is written with the obvious intent of distracting TNR readers from the editors’ compromised ethics by attacking an ideological opposite.

It is perhaps not the oldest trick in psychology or politics, but it is close: attack a common enemy to shore up your own faltering base. Chait’s none-too-subtle-variation on this is to get readers riled up at Kristol for a comment where he states that liberals are turning against the troops. I would imagine that the quote is probably accurate, even though Chait provides neither a link to the original editorial, or the context in which this passage appeared.

But what is far more interesting—both to myself, and based upon their comments, some of the magazine’s readers—is what Chait doesn’t say in his attempt to distract us away from the magazine’s editorial deceptions with his assault on Kristol.

The topic was The New Republic’s decision to publish an essay by Scott Beauchamp, an American soldier serving in Iraq, detailing some repugnant acts he said he and his comrades committed. Legitimate questions have been raised about this essay’s veracity. (We’ve been publishing updates on our continuing efforts to get answers to them at tnr.com.) But Kristol rushed past these questions, immediately declaring the piece a “fiction.”

Legitimate questions were raised about Beauchamp’s articles: all three of them, in fact. And we know now based upon an internal investigation by the United States Army, interviews with military personnel, contractors, vehicle experts, and even simple Google searches, is that the major allegations made in “Shock Troops” and in at least one of Beauchamp’s other stories (”Dark of Night”) are indeed, fiction. They are fabrications. Untruths. Lies.

The questions that remain surrounding this fabulist’s train-wreck are concerned with the editorial decisions of Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle, and perhaps even Chait and other editorial staffers.

Those questions—what did the editors know, when did they know it, and why do they continue to cover it up—those are the questions that remain unresolved and of interest to those following this on-going example of gross editorial misconduct.

To recap:

• TNR editor Franklin Foer claimed on July 20 that, “I’ve spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine–and much to corroborate–the author’s descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation.” Foer has never provided any corroborating details to support these claims, despite his promise.
• The editors claimed that “the article [Shock Troops] was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published.” The fact of the matter is that TNR subsequently had to change the “burned woman” assault story from happening at FOB Falcon and as the result of the psychological trauma experienced by the author as the result of combat, to another location in another country before Beauchamp ever went to war, precisely because they did not rigorously edit or fact check the article before publication. This is a not only evidence of a lie by the editors when they said they “rigorously edited and fact-checked” the article before publication, it fatally undermines the entire premise of the article.
• TNR has not released, and appears to have purposefully hidden, unfavorable testimony of those it interviewed in the course of their investigation. We know that TNR editor Jason Zengerle admitted to John Podhoretz of The Corner that a Kuwait-based PAO regarded the “burned woman” story as a myth or urban legend, yet TNR editors have never revealed these findings as part of their investigation. So much for the promise to “release the full results of our search when it is completed.” We have no way of knowing if they have hidden other unfavorable information.
• TNR’s editors have led a purposefully vague investigation that does not disclose the names, qualifications, or expertise of anyone they claimed to have interviewed during the course of their investigation, hindering anyone who would like to follow behind them and verify the veracity of their claimed research. They have not disclosed the questions they asked their experts, and have thus far refused to provide their answers directly.
• One of the experts has been located and re-interviewed, and discloses the fact that he was never specifically interviewed about the claims made by Beauchamp at all. Further, once provided with Beauchamp’s direct claims, he cited the physical properties and characteristics that would make Beauchamp’s claims highly unlikely if not impossible. TNR staffers are well aware of his new, more fully-informed response, and have yet to respond.

In short, TNR’s editors, led by Franklin Foer, have misled their readers, hidden testimony, and perhaps even rigged an investigation in order to claim some sort of vindication for their editorial and ethical failings.

These are the matters of importance that Johathan Chait, Franklin Foer, and other staffers at The New Republic would rather we didn’t focus on.

They would much rather gin up “us versus them” conflicts between liberals and conservatives, between The Weekly Standard and The New Republic, and supporters of the war versus those who would bring the troops home now, than focus on the all-too-apparent fact that the editorial leadership of The New Republic has lied to its readers, compromised their integrity, and dissembled to fellow journalists and critics alike. They’ve done all of this to cover-up just how poor of a job they did in allowing a staffer’s husband to publish inflammatory articles without any apparent editorial controls in place.

The editors of The New Republic have rather obviously lied to us all. They continue to do so today, and no amount of blame-shifting or “look over there!” sleight-of-hand will hide that brutal fact.

In the comments to Chait’s article, TNR subscriber “PJmolloy” states:

This is a vile piece. It almost makes Beauchamp look tolerable if this is the alternative.

I’ve subscribed to TNR off and on for forty years. But it looks like it’ll be more off than on in the future. Isn’t there someone who can help this magazine?

There is, of course.

Why CanWest MediaWorks refuses to do so is yet another mystery.

Update: Captain Ed pulls no punches:

Chait should save his shocked, shocked! hypocrisy for the people in his own office who violated journalistic standards to publish Beauchamp, apparently based on the word of his wife and sweetened by the themes of his inartful fabulism. Attacking Kristol for essentially nailing the strangely-silent editors and publisher of TNR may conform to the strategy of going on offense as the best defense, but it’s rather transparent, like the glass house TNR has chosen to occupy.

Nor does Bryan at Hot Air:

Chait’s article is another example of TNR’s defense by offense, and it’s the work of a smear artist and a scoundrel.

Powerline’s Scott Johnson rips the TNR editor’s “Chaitred” as well.

It seems at this late stage that even an offensive by The New Republic is quite transparent and doomed to fail.

I also seem to have someone’s undivided attention at the home office.