Bob Owens wrote the CFO of the holding company that owns TNR (something I should have done, but work, kids, bla bla bla), and actually got a civil – if corporate and somewhat content-free response from TNR’s publisher…essentially saying “We’re looking into it…”
His response really can’t be improved on.
OK, OK, I think he missed one point that I’d have added:
“The editorial staff lied to your readers by failing to admit that they had multiple – inconclusive – discussions with Beauchamp at a time when they publicly claimed that the Army was holding him incommunicado.”
But it’s a damn good response anyway. Go read it, give him an attaboy, and hit his tipjar. If anyone in this sorry mess deserves it, he does – he’s actually practicing journalism. Something I wish TNR would start doing again.
A prediction: “Type 1” comments will squarely address TNR’s journalistic practices in the Beauchamp case. “They erred,” “they were unethical,” “they did the best they could,” “Beauchamp’s story was indeed credible,” and the like.
“Type 2” comments will jump to some larger lesson or point. “Who cares?,” “the media is in the military’s pocket,” “there’s a vast left-wing conspiracy afoot,” “you’re fools for talking about this tiny issue when huge issue X looms,” and so forth.
It seems to me that everybody, almost always, has the option of dismissing a current story for Type 2 reasons. Interestingly, it seems that which stories get the insta-Type-2 treatment maps pretty closely with a commenter’s preexisting views of the larger picture.
Would Franklin Foer’s conduct have been more, or less, commendable if Beauchamp’s pieces had falsely praised the US Army? If ethics and standards don’t mean much when it comes to “small stuff” like “Baghdad Diarist,” does this say anything about weightier matters? If Foer’s journalist colleagues think this is not a “big”:http://patterico.com/2007/10/31/my-latest-e-mail-to-the-la-timess-readers-representative-or-you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/ “deal,”:http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/still_no_correction_from_the_l.asp should that inspire trust or cynicism among the mainstream’s readers?
_Would Franklin Foer’s conduct have been more, or less, commendable if Beauchamp’s pieces had falsely praised the US Army?_
About the same. But he’d have been in a whole lot of company, and he wouldn’t have gotten singled out for it.
_If Foer’s journalist colleagues think this is not a big deal, should that inspire trust or cynicism among the mainstream’s readers?_
Cynicism. About time, too. The media did unremitting cheerleading for the war for years, and their gradual disenchantment has trailed that of the public. These guys are mostly administration shills, and it could hardly be worse if the public starts ignoring them.
J Thomas #2,
“About the same” and “Cynicism”–yeah. Where we differ is that it seems to me that so many possible and probable cases of journalistic misconduct turn out to be complex and ambiguous when examined in detail. Foer’s doesn’t, at least not in any way that could speak well of him or his institution.
I hesitate to ask, because you’ve been diligent about backing up your claims throughout these discussions. But could you post a link to a precis of what you view as the single most clear-cut, outrageous, and unpunished case of high-profile journalistic malfeasance that was in service to the cheerleading-for-the-war cause? (If real-life duties prevent you from answering a stranger’s request–understood. You’ve contributed a lot to discussions here; thanks.)
Define “malfeasance”, AMac.
And tell me whether you think Judith Miller’s reporting in the NYT in 2002-2003 qualifies or not.
Alan, definition of malfeasance is up to J. Thomas, and you; I’d suggest “worse or comparable breach of journalistic ethics as is being demonstrated by Foer in the Beauchamp affair.” I’d suppose that Miller’s reporting does not qualify, because (1) she’s been criticized and scorned by many reporters and editors in the mainstream media and effectively lost her NYT post as fallout of her reporting during the Plame/Novak/Libby scandal, and (2) much though not all of her pre-war and war reporting was premised on the wrong assessments of the US intelligence community.
But if you think she’s the best parallel to Foer, a link to a summary essay that makes that sort of case would be appreciated.
Re #1 from AMac
I think you are confounding legitimate Type 2 discussion with the much more prevalent ‘foaming at the mouth’ partisan rant. The latter usually punctuated with the phrases “they always” and/or “they never” (fill in the blank with “right/left/liberal/conservative/MSM/…” to suit). I don’t have the sense that a story is ‘dismissed’ just because it triggers a ‘Type 2’ response, indeed I believe the utility of the discussion is to cast various specific current events into their larger context. Whether TNR did in this instance fail to meet a reasonable journalistic standard [and the Type 1 discussion rightly tries to establish this], is still subordinate [in my view] to the Type 2 questions it raises about the rules and the role of journalism in society. And even larger questions [Type 3?], which I believe you allude to, about the peculiarities of human behavior when it comes to challenging or confirming their previously held beliefs.
AMac:
bq. “worse or comparable breach of journalistic ethics as is being demonstrated by Foer in the Beauchamp affair.”
Do you mean to imply that this is the only type of “misbehavior” that qualifies as “journalistic malfeasance”? Seems an overly narrow definition, which is exactly why I am asking you to define your term before getting into this too deeply. Clearly, having to satisfy your specific definition is a fools game.
And why should the definition be predicated on what happened in the aftermath? Is not a murderer still guilty of murder even if he comes back to Jesus afterwards?
Because, yes, I do think that Judith Miller’s reporting qualifies as malfeasance, in my book, as does the NYT as a whole.
As far as “the best” example, I cannot speak to that without doing a lot more digging than I am capable of doing at the moment. It’s the first one that popped into my head, and it’s a pretty good one at that, if I don’t say.
Instead of a link, here’s the text of at least one pretty good write-up of the Miller/Pre-War situation that lays out some additional interesting points:
“New York Times admits failures in run-up to war”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1225616,00.html
Gary Younge in New York
May 27, 2004 — The Guardian
The New York Times yesterday admitted that its coverage in the run-up to the Iraq war was “not as rigorous as it should have been” and failed to adequately question the credibility of Iraqi defectors or challenge their tales of terror camps and the presence of weapons of mass destruction.
In a 1,200-word article signed From the Editors, one of America’s most prestigious newspapers wrote: “Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged – or failed to emerge.”
The paper is particularly critical of its dependence on Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles “bent on regime change in Iraq – people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks”. Chief among them, the editors concede, was Ahmad Chalabi, the former Pentagon favourite, whose offices in Iraq were raided last week after he fell out of favour.
— snip —
[ Middle of Younge’s article snipped; use link to Guardian site, above. — Marshal Festus/AMac ]
In an examination of unsigned editorials for the Columbia Journalism Review, Chris Mooney looked at the US media’s response to Colin Powell’s presentation on WMD before the UN security council last year.
“The US papers all pronounced Powell right, though they couldn’t possibly know for sure that he was. In short, they trusted him. And in so doing, they failed to bring even an elementary scepticism to the Bush case for war.”
bq. (1) she’s been criticized and scorned by many reporters and editors in the mainstream media and effectively lost her NYT post as fallout of her reporting during the Plame/Novak/Libby scandal,
“Tough Love”:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/mill-n11.shtml corporate America style:
Judith Miller and the New York Times make a deal
By Bill Van Auken
11 November 2005
The deal announced by the New York Times Thursday granting a severance package to its senior correspondent Judith Miller and acceding to various conditions demanded by her lawyers represents one more tawdry episode in the newspaper’s deception of its readers on the war in Iraq.
Both sides agreed to keep silent on the size of Miller’s golden parachute, but it is rumored to be in the high six figures.
Scorn:
Since leaving the New York Times, Miller has continued her work as a writer in Manhattan and has contributed several op-ed pieces to The Wall Street Journal.
On September 7, 2007, she was hired as an adjunct fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative free-market think tank. Her duties will also include being a contributing editor for the organization’s publication, City Journal.
I thought the bulk of Miller’s work turned out to be from a source that turned out to be flat-out lying to her – and the US intelligence services.
Being caught out by a lying source is very different from being the lying source.
Alan, the Guardian piece on the NYT/Miller is interesting, and an example of misconduct to the benefit of pro-war forces. Whether it’s cut-and-dried, I don’t know. I asked for a link in order to not jump this discussion straight past Type 1 to Type 2, and beyond. But I appreciate your digging out the content. Miller’s malfeasance versus Foer’s, then–helpful for me and perhaps others on “my side” to think about.
> Clearly, having to satisfy your specific definition is a fools game.
Well, if you say so–but I made it clear (#6) that I’d be as interested in your definition as my own.
Anyway, thanks for the piece.
bq. Well, if you say so–but I made it clear (#6) that I’d be as interested in your definition as my own.
True.
And I will point out that I “jumped” to a “Type #2” reply in response to your effort to open that line of discussion with J Thomas, not because I harbor or wish to demonstrate some “pre-existing” biases. (And further, I think the pre-classification effort, while interesting from a psychological perspective, will do more to atomize rather than synthesize discussion around the topic, which I regard as an unnecessarily artificial constraint. )
Sorry about pasting the whole Guardian piece rather than providing the link, and thanks for fixing the html code.
Ian Coull (#7) and Alan (#12) —
My thinking is not at all that Types 2 & 3 discussions aren’t worthwhile or valid. Just that, per Ian, they don’t trump or invalidate the Type 1 concerns. What got me thinking about this was the way that TNR’s readers at TNR’s blog “The Plank” gelled around defending the magazine, also noted as a dominant reaction at some other blogs. Under those conditions, a discussion of Type 1 issues becomes some mix of Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic” and a crash course in postmodernist thought. Maybe Bob Owens/Type 1 bulldogs are valuable wherever we find them, left or right.
For a journalist, going to work for a think tank and being confined to op-eds is about as far out in the wildness as anyone gets put. Heck, Jason Blair flat out made stories up and he writes a best selling book and becomes an anti-poverty advocate.
The media’s approach to WMVs and the run-up to the Iraq war tracked closely with the views of leading Democratic leaders – as it often does, for some reason.
In particular the Clintons, whose views the media has often been reluctant to criticize, for some reason.
When faced with a rift in Democratic-liberal opinion, the media will always side with the most viable or electable Democrat, per the William S. Burroughs principle: “The purple-assed baboon will always attack the weakest party in an altercation.”
The MSM won’t face up to their many errors in current war reporting, which tracks with the defeatist left. But they are willing to wear phony sackcloth over their supposed pro-war errors, while allowing Democrats – in particular, that frail little girl who is currently the front-running candidate – to pretend that they were only for the war because Bush lied to them. Or even to pretend that they were 100% against it all along.
Glen;
If I might be permitted an aside, to address yours.
I take great offense at this unbelievably misogynous and off-topic statement:
bq. – in particular, that frail little girl who is currently the front-running candidate –
You know, I am by no means a Hillary partisan or supporter at this point (although if she wins the nomination I will give heartily to her campaign), but it’s sentiments like yours (which I expect will not, unfortunately, be uncommon as we proceed toward next year’s election) that are driving me toward earlier support.
I think Glen was being facetious…
the comment is neither misogynous nor off topic. It’s an example, in his opinion, of the press going easy on Hillary as if she were “a frail little girl” and they were her protectors.
You can agree or not. And request cites…
but please refrain from the name calling… I always think “doodoohead” when people start with the racist/ sexist/genderist labels. Cuz it reminds me of name-calling in 6 year olds. “Are too”, “Am not”
ensues… Why should the adult ‘names’ gather more respect? They have about as much meaning.
bq. I think Glen was being facetious…
Upon re-reading the comment I see I probably took the wrong meaning. “Misogynous” may be too strong…sexist perhaps is more accurate.
Alan:
Given that it’s Clinton’s position that all the nasty men are ganging up on her – not mine, Alan – I suspect that you are correct and we will see this line faithfully parroted.
As we seem to be unfamiliar with sarcasm, I will close the cash register at this point.
I’m very familiar with that form of sarcasm, Glen, fear not. It’s just that when it is injected into a political discussion as you did then one should expect it to be plumbed for the underlying sentiment that it attempts to soften and make palatable.
I like your high horse, Alan. Is it new?
That was more sarcasm. I know you’re not really riding a horse.
AMac is right here. Type 2 response of “”you’re fools for talking about this tiny issue when huge issue X looms,” is appropriate here. My version of Type 2, which I’ve posted before, I will post again:
a. Cherry-picked example
b. False conclusions from that example.
c. False judgments about importance of example.
d. False universalizing of example, to all media.
You guys keep wanting to see windmills as dragons, go forth Don Quixote!
I actually think that one of the better political snark writers, could do a bang-up job, of reporting on rightwing internet blogs, and their obsess about their fantasy dragons (the media), and weave this into some further tale of Don Quixote.
I’m not that good a writer, but someone could make it pretty entertaining. We can hope for the final return of sanity to the rightwing, but it probably won’t happen, as happened at the end, for Don Quixote, but it probably won’t happen.
You’re killing me, Glen. You must do this for a living.
Incidentally, Alan, “Andrew Sullivan says”:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/the-clintonit-1.html that your line of argument here is “deeply sexist”.
Except for the last line, I don’t think he’s even being sarcastic.
To return to my initial point, Clinton has gotten an easy ride from the MSM for her multiple Iraq positions. Not because she’s a woman, either. She’s been allowed to waffle around for the same reason that Kerry was allowed to go through an entire presidential campaign without being for or against the Iraq war.
The notion that everybody lied except the Clintons and like-minded Democratic leaders is – a lie.
bq. To return to my initial point, Clinton has gotten an easy ride from the MSM for her multiple Iraq positions.
Every Republican candidate so far has been given an easy ride on ALL their multiple positions, Glen. That’s, what, 8 white men… Maybe there are just too many “mis-statements” to keep up with, I dunno.
So what’s your point again?
My point was in #15, Alan. As for the other point you brought up, you’re doing a satisfactory job of demolishing it all on your own.
Getting back to TNR, I don’t believe Foer published these diaries to push an anti-war narrative. He published them because he’s a lousy editor, and the stories got a pass because they comported with smug anti-military prejudices and because of Beauchamp’s familial relationship with TNR.
I don’t think TNR anticipated the furor, or that the internet left would rally to the defense of these stories (Note: To the defense of the stories, not necessarily of TNR itself. Many are taking the line that Quiggen does: TNR is an irrelevant rag that nobody reads, etc.)
Although Foer has been quick to hide behind this bluster, I don’t think TNR as a whole is comfortable with the attitudes being displayed here. Not just the “Nobody reads TNR anyway” but with the casual attitudes towards journalistic ethics.
That’s the soft point that Bob Owens is hammering on in this letter.