National Review Standards Update

Kevin Drum catches David Freddoso blaming Democrats for something Democrats tried to prevent until they were blocked by the GOP. This kind of things goes on all the time at National Review and The Weekly Standard which is why I think Thomas Smith is getting a bad rap as a "fabulist."

It's true that he wrote things for National Review Online that weren't true, but this happens all the time. It's not a publication that cares, in general, about the accuracy of the claims its writers make so why shouldn't Smith make up a fake Hezbollah invasion of East Beirut?

Comments

Matt, you are too elitified from your Haravah education to appreciate the remarkable diversity of the opinions at the Corner. Derb hates the immigrants who came after him, Lucianne hates the liberals, Ponnyboy hates the Party of Death, K Lo hates the Democrats and on and on. How can you not wonder in joy at the diversity of hate?

Posted by gregor | December 3, 2007 2:12 PM

As a regular reader of The Corner, there are two things more interesting than their problematic relationship with accuracy.

First, there is the overwhelming willingness to ignore news stories like Guiliani's Tryst Fund. What's the point of The Corner if the collective voices will remain silent on an issue like this. It's huge, it's newsworthy, and they've got nothing. I can only assume it's cowardice and embarrassment that motivates their silence.

Another mystery is (or, rather, was) why K-Lo wasn't more enthusiastic about Huckabee, since he is the one candidate whose anti-life credentials are impeccable and his sincerity beyond dispute. Thompson lobbied for a pro-choice group, McCain -- though voting pro-life -- doesn't appear to have his heart in the issue, and Romney is the most transparent phone ever to run for president. (It's not that some of his positions changed when he decided to run for the republican nomination. It's that ALL of them did.)

But I figured out that Lopez is a strong reflection of a large part of the Republican consistency that wants -- above all else -- a daddy-figure as the Republican nominee. (In her case, it's tinged somewhat by her almost sexual crush. You sometimes get the feeling she wishes Romney would take her to a Purity Ball.) It's why they never trusted the first Bush completely. It's why their candidates take positions designed to impress the "my dad can beat up your dad" crowd. What kills Thompson is that he's the daddy-figure who ended up marrying your best girlfriend.

But one thing Huckabee ain't, it's a father-figure. He's really more like a brother-in-law you actually like, whose house you don't mind visiting for the holidays. Sure, he's got some doctrinaire religious views, but he won't shove them down your throat, and you can still talk about Sticky Fingers.

Posted by Ryan | December 3, 2007 2:42 PM

This kind of things goes on all the time at National Review and The Weekly Standard which is why I think Thomas Smith is getting a bad rap as a "fabulist."

.... Fabulist? You're being too kind. Aesop was a fabulist. These guys are just plain liars.

Posted by Independent | December 3, 2007 3:09 PM

This kind of things goes on all the time at the New Republic too, especially on Middle East matters, which is why Thomas Beauchamp is also getting a bad rap.

Posted by otto | December 3, 2007 3:21 PM

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

Posted by Tiparillo | December 3, 2007 7:12 PM

I abhor snarky comments masquerading as political debate. I dislike them on the Corner and I dislike them here.

If you're better than they are be better, not bitchier.

Posted by dom portwood | December 4, 2007 2:46 PM

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

Posted by Tim | December 4, 2007 2:48 PM

You're brain must be in traction after the twist of logic it took to equate the NRO Smith deal with TNR's Beauchamp.

BTW, have you read Andrew Sullivan in the past several years?

Posted by TRO | December 4, 2007 3:06 PM

The Giuliani Review is a circus. A number of these people slink around as undisclosed Giuliani supporters. Some of them are on his payroll.

The newest attack for Giuliani was a hoot. Lowry missed the scoop 6 months ago when the "fair tax" was shopped around for political suckers. Now, when Huckabee has surged, Rich slaps together with rhetorical flourish the work done months ago by those investigating the "fair tax".

Last is the total dishonesty of the arm-chair economists at GRO. They wring their hands over as much as a hundred billion of agricultural spending, but got nothing to say about trillions of wasteful military spending.

Gosh, ain't it awful when we give farmers, corporate or mom and pop, a little lee-away to seed up a competitive enterprise. And when it comes to global negotiation, our fighter jets don't really mean much to continue the de-escalation of world subsidy, which has enjoyed significant decline over the last few decades.

Posted by mikeVA | December 4, 2007 4:25 PM

Really now, Matthew. All the time? List them - should be easy to create such a list, there being vast samples for the picking.

All the time, huh? Good grief - guess who just made up something.

Maybe you're at least half-right, since you just did it yourself.

Posted by JR | December 4, 2007 4:34 PM

Umm...yeah...right...whatever. I've been a reader of NR for about 15 years and The Corner has been daily reading for me since it's inception and both have been invaluable sources of information for me over the years. I can't tell you how many arguments with liberal friends I've won and how many times I've put their information to use and I've never regretted it.

Really, pulling three blog posts (two actually as I think Freddoso is right about the AMT. Dems have been holding it hostage for months trying to get "pay-fors". This isn't a secret. How does Drum account for this? He never mentions it. Sorry Matt and Kev, but this is a hella-weak) and declaring NRO fabricators or indifferent to facts is absurd.

Several people have pointed to your blog neighbor Andrew and I'd love to hear your take on him now. I was a devoted Daily Dish addict from early 2002 through late 2005 when his accumulated error rate was too much for me. Since I went cold turkey with Andrew, (I told you I was an addict! It was either 2 packs of Andrew a day or nothing)
I've seen him on Bill Maher, heard him on Hugh Hewitt, and the guys in The Corner have eviscerated some of his worst attacks on them and, if anything, Andrew seems to have gotten much worse. I'm not a regular M Ygl reader, but a quick scan and Google-ing doesn't bring up anything.

Anyway, it's not a question of "who's worse" and "your guys do it to", so if MY can point to more than these, I'd be interested in seeing them.

This is only speculation on my part, but I think this is a case, and I've seen many already, of lefties striking back at the right after the Beauchamp affair. Owens, Reynolds, Malkin, The Standard and NRO pretty much nailed it months ago. While Ygl downplayed it or attacked the right for what they said about it. Now that he can point to something on the right, he's attacking.

Posted by Mark B | December 4, 2007 5:55 PM

I live a couple blocks away from the Frosts in Baltimore (remember that mess that The Corner jumped on that didn't pan out at all?) and pretty much immediately shot off a matter-of-fact e-mail to Mark Steyn letting him know that it's pretty usual for houses in our part of Baltimore to sell for over half-a-million while houses on the same block are appraised at and sell for far, far less. The last block I lived on had a house listed between 700-800k and another two doors down of similar size for 220k.

Of course, no response from the e-mail to Steyn either directly or in a future post, etc. Another time I mailed Byron York letting him know about a simple math error underlying his interpretation of a poll as saying that Clinton had much higher favorables than Obama (in that poll it was almost exactly even). Ditto then.

Frankly, I don't know why NRO is even bothering to claim any sort of editorial responsibility on their blogs. I don't think anyone really expects them to, and no over there bothers to take any e-mail seriously that's politely critical (while saving time to read through hate mail and post the worst to vilify all who disagree).

Posted by Zach | December 4, 2007 7:42 PM