Bad News Journalism

Frank Foer offers his take on the Scott Beauchamp mess. This whole doesn't seem to me to reflect very well on Beauchamp, on TNR, or on the crazed hawks who went after this story with guns blazing. Whatever the magazine's sins here may have been, though, one could hardly deem them especially significant in the broader scheme of things. More to the point, the magazine's response to allegations that it had printed something false is emblematic of how serious journalists respond to such matters -- seriously -- with a real effort to the discern the truth and with the belief that it's a seriously bad thing to publish something that wasn't true.

This is a sense of conscience and responsibility that seems almost entirely absent from the journals of the conservative movement. One could point to the way W. Thomas Smith appears to have written a bunch of made-up stuff about Lebanon for National Review Online, but to be fair to Smith I can easily imagine a person coming to the conclusion that NRO doesn't see inaccuracy as a bar to publication. Brad DeLong reminded us recently that National Review regularly publishes Donald Luskin included such pearls of wisdom as the following critique of studies showing rising inequality in the United States:

But none of this is reliable anyway: A footnote reveals that the statistics are derived from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics database, an ongoing survey that tracks only 8,000 families out of a U.S. population of 295 million individuals.

Yes, that's right, Donald Luskin, contributing editor to NRO Financial, doesn't believe in the validity of statistical sampling.

But of course since we're talking about a publication that frequently publishes intelligent designers on scientific topics why shouldn't it publish people who don't believe in statistics on economic tactics? And following on that, why not let Smith fabricate his dispatches from Lebanon? After all, climate change denialism gets a fair hearing at National Review on a regular basis. Some people will probably find K-Lo's apology about how "NRO should have provided readers with more context and caveats in some posts from Lebanon this fall" to be a laughably inadequate response to having completely fabricated an invasion of East Beirut by thousands of Hezbollah fighters. To me, though, it seems like rank hypocrisy for NRO to hold a particular writer out to dry like this -- Smith was just working to the long-established NRO standards.

Comments

Indeedy. As I found out at here http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060038.php "[Smith] is the executive editor of World Defense Review, and the co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design"

Posted by Eduardo | December 3, 2007 8:51 AM

Foer's long-awaited attempt to put this thing to bed got well over two hundred immediate responses, which, given tnr's recent loss of readers (exacerbated significantly by their appallingly inept home page redo), is a big splash.

Question is, was this a Dan Rather moment? I don't think so. These folks seem to place a pretty high value on getting the facts straight, which is more than can be said for many others where Iraq is concerned. I'm lookin' at you, Matt.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 3, 2007 8:57 AM

"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design"

Wow, the self-parody is so deep I almost feel bad for them.

"These folks seem to place a pretty high value on getting the facts straight, which is more than can be said for many others where Iraq is concerned. I'm lookin' at you, Matt."

And the self-parody continues! Coming from the guy who confuses a little skirmish like Operation: Desert Fox with an 11-year war that took place in his head, that's a bit of a compliment.

Posted by Reality Man | December 3, 2007 9:11 AM

NRO follows the classic Leninist line that politics is the only thing that matters-- all other questions, including 'What is truth?', are answered by consulting the manual.

Posted by MattF | December 3, 2007 9:12 AM

To be fair: TNR applied itself to the Beauchamp issue and kept its reader's posted. NRO is so full of blather that it dumped its truthometer for lack of use. The gang at NRO spend so much time congratulating one another that they have little time, and no words, for mundane issues like accuracy and good judgement. K Lo: how low can you go?

Posted by Alan | December 3, 2007 9:24 AM

I'm lookin' at you, Matt.

I'm pretty sure Yglesias is already involved with someone else.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 3, 2007 9:42 AM

This whole doesn't seem to me to reflect very well on Beauchamp

When this whole mess started, Matthew Yglesias suggested that the wingers would succeed in finding one or two trivial mistakes, and would unfairly use that to completely destroy the guy's credibility. Without any deviation from this narrative, it seems that both Matthew Yglesias and Frank Foer have folded.

Reading TNR's recent posts: The evidence suggests that Scott Beauchamp made exactly one minor mistake in his retelling (one mess conversation took place in Kuwait, not Iraq). And that's it. The army conducted an investigation that is at most flawed, at worst designed to make him look bad. They didn't interview the right people. They conducted their investigation under threat of severe punishment for people who backed Beauchamp. They monitored his calls, and when he (reasonably) elected not to discuss the issue on a monitored phone, leaked this to the Drudge report as evidence of Beauchamp's mendacity.

Beauchamp is not a professional journalist. He's a soldier, and TNR was lucky to have his perspective. It's possible that his stories are exaggerated, but without any convincing evidence against them--- and in light of the massive effort to find such evidence by the Army and conservative press--- you have to give them a hearing. No, one cannot possibly give absolute credence to a story without having proof that it occurred. At the same time, you can't expect this kind of guarantee from a contributor (or even professional journalists). There's no victory for the conscientious media here. The conservative press has learned how to misuse the media's own conscience against it. It's just easy to say "well, I give up on Beauchamp" rather than admit that you've been played and played rather well.

Posted by MattNotYglesias | December 3, 2007 9:55 AM

Given that you yourself say that TNR's primary concern was ensuring that the truth was printed and lies were not printed, and reversing that if such had occurred, Matt, it's unclear to me why you say that this doesn't "reflect very well" on TNR. Making an error is just human; the decision whether to make up for it is where people will do things that either reflect well or poorly on themselves. TNR passed this test, I think. I don't see why they don't.

Posted by Martin | December 3, 2007 9:57 AM

You say Smith "completely fabricated an invasion of East Beirut by thousands of Hezbollah fighters."

He never said nor did that. But it doesn't matter to you people. You are burning a man at the stake with these absolute distortions of the facts and getting away with it.

This is outrageous.

Go back and read what he said, and not what the pundits are telling you he said.

Posted by Brett | December 3, 2007 11:07 AM

MY - This whole doesn't seem to me to reflect very well on Beauchamp, on TNR, or on the crazed hawks who went after this story with guns blazing.

Well, 2 out of 3 things right, Matt, isn't too bad.

1. Scott Beauchamp was a liar.

2. Franklin Foer after a summer of aredently defending Beauchamp and the quality of his magazines fact checking, grasping at straws, then a fall of silence - admits that Beauchamps wife, Elizabeth Reed served as TNR's fact-checker for Beauchamps story. And the atrocities are all unverified. (All crap as any Vet or active duty serviceman could tell you instantly on reading 3 of his 4 "atrocity" feature elements - with the 4th easily verified as bunk or not but what sounded like bunk - the grave desecration.)

However, the "crazed hawks", who hit the story as crap - were the Vets and now serving front line men who knew enough about the military to call "Bullshit!" on Beauchamps central story elements as fabrications. And the non-Vet, true fact checkers of the Blogosphere who exposed Beauchamp's story of combat as being written in Germany - he was never in a war in his life to write about at that point.
And it is unknown if he as a rear echelon apprentice mechanic has EVER been in combat in Iraq, even at today's date. Many people like him are what the Army calls "Fobbits" - they arrive at a Forward Operating Base, but never leave it's safety until it is time for them to leave for good by virtue of their MOS.

The only other credit goes to the Army, which quickly found the truth about the hoax and punished Beauchamp with yet another bust and demotion - while offering him a chance to redeem himself and not be saddled for life with a Bad Conduct Discharge - simply by agreeing to stop the lies discrediting his fellow troops in a war zone, and to shut up and do his Army job.

But it is likely Beauchamp has badly hurt the journalist career of his wife, Elizabeth, by making her his main enabler by subverting the fact check role she was dumbly assigned to do and neither her or her editor stopped it on conflict of interest.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 3, 2007 12:45 PM

Shorter Chris Ford: cleave to your rightful military rulers, whose virtue must not be questioned.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 3, 2007 1:10 PM

I'm just laughing remembering this post:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/beauchamp_updated.php

Well, it looks like The Weekly Standard and the right-wing blogosphere really had the goods turn out to be full of shit, though it does turn out that the incident with the soldiers making fun of the injured woman happened in a base in Kuwait rather than a base in Iraq. Nevertheless, despite being totally wrong, it's arguably mission accomplished for the right:

=================================================

Foer's article reads like a parody of how we are told modern journalism is done. The "fact-checker" is Beauchamp's wife, corroborating members of his platoon are unnamed voices he puts on the phone, and 90% of the research effort is done AFTER the story is questioned.

On a deeper level what is really sad is that apparently no one on the TNR staff has served in the military and so has no clue that the story sounds fishy or apparently even knows anyone in the military to ask in confidence. The first call to see if the story passed the "smell test" wasn't to a current or former military person but another journalist. It's as though TNR ran a story on medical malpractice and never bothered to talk to any MDs.

Compare and Contrast. TNR is questioned on a story. Their first reaction is to attack the motives of the questioners. Spends over four months either exaggerating how their research supports them or stone-walling only to finally do a climb-down. NRO is questioned on a story. Within three days they print a retraction and an apology and thank the person who questioned the story.

Posted by Campesino | December 3, 2007 1:25 PM

As usual our right wing trolls are full of shit.

As Sullivan and others have documented, K-Lo was credibly informed that this story was a pack of lies almost 2 months ago and she only issued the weasle worded non-apology apology last week.

Posted by Eric K | December 3, 2007 4:32 PM

It took more than two months and almost 1,000 words, but National Review Online and its copy editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, have finally retracted several pieces by corrupt blogger W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

As most of the blog world (with the exception of Washington Post media czar Howie Kurtz) knows by now, National Review Online published a series of pieces on Lebanon by corrupt blogger W. Thomas Smith Jr., who identified himself as a devout, South Carolina-based Conservative and former Marine. Smith, who called himself a bit of "Cowboy," and proudly trumpeted his after all, theft of "a Hezbollah flag while I was there. Was that Thomas the journalist snagging the flag? Hardly. That was Thomas the Marine. And that's part of who I am, which I suppose makes me part cowboy. But that’s something my detractors will just to have to live with, because that’s not going to change."

Smith, who was in Lebanon to monitor the activities of Hezbollah, further made clear that his observers were not independent in nature.

"Frankly, I'm not concerned with what Hezbollah assumes. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, funded, trained, and equipped by the Islamic (Iranian) Revolutionary Guard Corps. My responsibility is not to concern myself with how Hezbollah perceives me, nor do I feel any compulsion to court them. They are the enemy as far as I’m concerned. My responsibility is to deliver the facts to my readers, which I have always done and will always do."

Unfortunately, Smith turned out to be a fabulist. Here’s the conclusion of the Lopez’s blog entry, "Mea Culpa, Note for Non-Weekend Readers," that appeared at 10:25 a.m. Dec. 3 at National Review Online:

"A regular freelancer (Smith) for NRO went to Lebanon in September and blogged in 'The Tank' from there. In two instances of which we’re aware, he mislead by not adequately sourcing – making clear he was relying on sources, not his own eyes for a scenes he described. We should have asked more questions. We didn't. A well-intentioned reporter got sloppy. We got sloppy checking on him. We were wrong and I apologize.

"We're taking steps to prevent this in the future – including setting up some very easily found and checked corrective e-mail addresses – so questions about pieces and blogs can be raised in a quick and timely manner.

"I hate that this happened, but I am grateful that it has been brought to our attention. We've apologized for it, and are now taking measures to keep such things from happening in the future."

What is most striking about Lopez's National Review Online piece and Smith's rejoinder is their Cheney-esque quality: grudging and self-justifying in tone and still eager to lash out at their critics even when Smith's fables from Lebanon have been shattered into a thousand pieces. In reading Lopez's piece, you get the sense that she was seething at The Huffington Post and Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, each of whom has spearheaded coverage on Smith's shoddy journalism and National Review Online's absence of editorial safeguards, and at Smith for having been caught in such a hypocritical series of lies and blatant deceit that can only sully the once-proud House of Buckley.

It turns out, of course, that it was National Review Online's critics, and not Mr. Smith or Ms. Lopez, who were vindicated, and all honor is due to them.

What National Review Online didn’t understand, and still seems unable to grasp, is that they and others saw this for what it was: an effort to use Smith's story to paint an ugly portrait of the situation in Lebanon and of the absence of Middle East policy in the Bush-Cheney Administration. National Review Online sought to further Neoconservative attempts to open U.S. military fronts in Iran, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, and Smith's litany of false pieces hoped to turn people into proponents of additional military action. What has happened, instead, is that the situation in Lebanon fails to follow the Bush-Cheney Neoconservative policy — and each and every one of Smith's National Review Online pieces have utterly collapsed.

This story was a torpedo aimed directly at the hull of National Review Online; the torpedo has now hit its mark. The damage is enormous and Kathryn Jean Lopez's explanation — which contains no formal criticism of W. Thomas Smith, Jr. or, more significantly, no apology to the members of the American military now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan unit — will only compound the damage. What Ms. Lopez called Smith having been "mislead" is really a scandal. And W. Thomas Smith, Jr. will now take his place beside Judith Miller, Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Jeff Gannon in the Neoconservative and Conservative Hall of Perpetual Shame.

That Howie Kurtz neglected to report promptly on this story only further sullies the reputation of Mr. Kurtz and The Washington Post.

Posted by Mark | December 3, 2007 4:57 PM

National Review's W. Thomas Smith Jr: A feature not a bug - catapult the propaganda!

Posted by Tiparillo | December 3, 2007 5:32 PM

I have yet to see the any Beauchamp lies documented by the NRO/our soldiers are the living embodiment of Christ crowd. Can anyone who is not part of that crowd enlighten me? I've followed the story to some extent, and all I've heard is that the disfigured woman was in Kuwait and not Iraq.

Foer really let things spiral out of control by trying to respond to critics who have no interest in finding the truth but who are interested only in viciously attacking their enemies. It's practically a self-parody of a liberal opinion journal response. You can just see them all at Foer's house, earnestly dividing up the work for the fact check, thinking they can actually satisfy these critics, who as far as I can tell based their criticism on absolutely nothing.

Nonetheless, Foer put Beauchamp (and Reeve) in a horrible position, time and again. He ruined Beauchamp's army career by exposing him to the wrath of out and out crazy right-wingers in the military like Col. Steve Boylan (google Boylan and Glenn Greenwald for a rundown on what a hack Boylan is). I can't believe Foer didn't mention that Boylan has it out for the so-called liberal media in his article about the whole thing.

The army's role in the whole affair is extremely troubling, to say the least, and Foer barely mentions that part of the story, which to me is far more interesting than the original story TNR published.

Posted by bob | December 3, 2007 7:36 PM

Campesino nails it. Chris Ford's comment is good as well, although he get's Beauchamp's wife's name wrong (it's "Elspeth"). As the fellow who wrote this:

"Nonetheless, Foer put Beauchamp (and Reeve) in a horrible position, time and again. He ruined Beauchamp's army career..."

I stopped reading your comment right there. If you really think Beauchamp cared about his Army career, you are clueless about this whole affair.

Posted by Fred | December 3, 2007 8:09 PM

As usual our right wing trolls are full of shit.

As Sullivan and others have documented, K-Lo was credibly informed that this story was a pack of lies almost 2 months ago and she only issued the weasle worded non-apology apology last week.

Posted by Eric K | December 3, 2007 4:32 PM
=================================================

Interesting attempt at equivalence that falls flat on its ass.

Once again, compare and contrast - TNR is publically called on the Beauchamp pieces in late July. Their reaction is to question the motives of the doubters, give half-assed interim excuses, stonewall, and finally give a retraction almost five months later.

NRO releases a retraction and apology on 11/30 thanking the questioner for bringing it to their attention. The day AFTER Edsall comes out in the HuffPo with his public criticism and AFTER the apology Sullivan, Greenwald et al jump in.

NRO never attacked Edsall and right-wing bloggers have been criticizing NRO. That's in contrast to blogs (like this one) that rallied around TNR after the Beauchamp thing broke.

Day and night. Apples and oranges. Feeble attempt that didn't work

Posted by Campesino | December 3, 2007 8:17 PM

Powell: "These folks seem to place a pretty high value on getting the facts straight, which is more than can be said for many others where Iraq is concerned. I'm lookin' at you, Matt."

You gotta laugh at this shit. Here's a guy who has made his whole posting career out of making up facts, revisionist history, and outright lies accusing Matt of having his facts wrong on Iraq.

These people really have no idea how stupid they look to everyone else.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 3, 2007 9:52 PM

I think tnr's efforts to get the facts straight were significantly hampered by the US Army. Whether this was intentional, or just typical bureaucracy is unclear, but I tend to think it was the latter.

People here who don't know that twelve years of ongoing combat operations enforcing sanctions that killed a million innocent people happened after '91, or if think it did doesn't constitute war, really have no idea how ignorant, not to say corrupt, they look. A "little skirmish"?

Morons like Hack, who hasn't refuted one single thing I've posted factually-not one-- but has instead humiliated himself with childish name-calling,deserve to be ignored, as I assume most intelligent posters here do.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 4, 2007 8:12 AM

To Campesino: Matt Yglesias is not the only one who got suckered by TNR/Beauchamp and would probably now prefer to forget their embarassing defense of him. A fairly complete list can be found here.

To Bob: If you are still looking for proof that Beauchamp's stories were fake, then you haven't been looking very hard. But a good fisking by an Iraqi vet (me) can be found here.

To Matt: What's even more amazing is that both your statement and Foer's "apology" still drip with condecension against the TNR's critics. Anyone who criticized the story (me included, I assume) is a "crazed hawk". Not even a single derogatory term directed at the people who actually wrote or published the bogus story. Moreover, you then try to sweep it under the rug by dismissing the whole affair as "hardly significant".

Strange that you don't likewise call the NRO stories "hardly significant". And why don't you also call the NRO's critics "crazed"?

Oh, I get it. You belive it's terrible when the political right does it, but understandable when it comes from a left-wing sympathetic view. This is stupid partisan bickering at its worst. Isn't all dishonest reporting equally reprehensible, no matter what side of the political spectrum it comes from?

Posted by John Rohan | December 4, 2007 9:36 AM

John--thanks for the link. You're right-I wasn't looking all that hard. Foer's recitation of all the crap put in his way by the Army rang true enough with my own military experience for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Best Regards,
Bob

Posted by Robert Powell | December 4, 2007 11:40 AM

PS-
couldn't agree more on the "stupid partisan bickering" point. It's a funking epidemic around here.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 4, 2007 11:44 AM

It ain't Smith to blame; he's only a pawn in their game.

Posted by Alex | December 9, 2007 6:02 PM