Michelle Malkin » The “Scott Thomas” saga continued

The “Scott Thomas” saga continued

By Michelle Malkin • July 24, 2007 09:13 AM

Update: Ace catches the NYTimes changing its story. It is definitely flaming skull time.

***

The newspaper that was hoaxed by Jayson Blair covers the magazine that was hoaxed by Stephen Glass, and which is now under tough scrutiny over the work of pseudonymous soldier “Scott Thomas.”

From the NYTimes:

Just who is the “Baghdad Diarist”?

It is a question that many people are asking The New Republic, the Washington political magazine that has been running articles attributed to an American soldier in Baghdad.

The author, who used the pen name Scott Thomas, has written three articles for the magazine since February, describing gruesome incidents in Iraq. Last week, The Weekly Standard questioned the veracity of the New Republic articles and invited readers with knowledge about the military or Baghdad to comment.

Since then, several readers and a spokesman for the base where the soldier is supposedly based have written in, raising more questions.

“Absolutely every piece of information that’s come out since we put that call up has cast further doubt on that story,” said Michael Goldfarb, the online editor of The Weekly Standard. “There’s not a single person that has come forward and said, ‘It sounds plausible.’ ”

Franklin Foer, the editor of The New Republic, will not reveal the author’s identity but says the magazine is investigating the accuracy of his articles. In the late 1990s, under different editors, the magazine fired an associate editor, Stephen Glass, for fabrications.

“Now that these questions have been raised, we’ve launched an inquiry. We’re putting the full resources of the magazine to look into the story,” Mr. Foer said. “It’s taking me a little bit longer than I wish it did. The author, not to mention some of the participants in the anecdotes he described, are active duty soldiers and they’re on 20-hour active combat missions sometimes, and it’s very difficult for me to get them all on the phone to ask them the questions that I’d like to ask.”

Should have thought of all that before printing “Thomas’s” articles, no?

Scott Johnson at Power Line writes:

We don’t know yet whether Thomas’s article is fact or fiction. Foer may yet produce facts that substantiate it. As I observed last week, however, TNR ran the article without much in the way of independent verification of the incidents recounted in it. Foer’s comments in the Times article today amplify the point. Given the poor light in which they displayed our armed forces serving in Iraq, the incidents retailed by “Thomas” were self-authenticating in the eyes of TNR. “The editors” never seriously thought to question them.

Michael Goldfarb, who got things rolling at the Weekly Standard online, has more reaction from FOB Falcon.

***

Just a reminder of TNR editor Peter Beinart’s sneering two years ago when conservative talk show hosts headed to Iraq to see the situation on the ground themselves:

“This is the most pathetic thing I’ve heard in a long time. They should be ashamed of themselves,” Peter Beinart, editor of left-leaning The New Republic magazine, said.“They have no idea what journalism is, and to pretend they are journalists is laughable,” Beinart said. “You do not achieve victory by not facing reality. I think these are the kinds of people that will lead us to lose there.”

Posted in: Jessie Macbeth, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, They don't support the troops

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (17)

trackbacks (9)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#1

On July 24th, 2007 at 9:22 am, jrlingreenbay said:

“It’s taking me a little bit longer than I wish it did. The author, not to mention some of the participants in the anecdotes he described, are active duty soldiers and they’re on 20-hour active combat missions sometimes, and it’s very difficult for me to get them all on the phone to ask them the questions that I’d like to ask.”

You would think, as serious as these allegations of misconduct are, someone at TNR would hang up the phone and actually physically go to Iraq and make inquiries in person.

The, “Gee, I can’t get the soldier on the phone” excuse seems extremely weak considering the consequences of getting it wrong - again.

As you said, MM:
“Should have thought of all that before printing “Thomas’s” articles, no?”
#2

On July 24th, 2007 at 9:37 am, Regulus said:

It’s par for the course for lefty “journalists.” If it portrays the American military in a bad light, then the two principles of source confirmation are:

1. Fake, but accurate; or
2. It might be true.

Either way, those principles lead to immediate publication/broadcast, then to belated efforts to “confirm” them if challenged.

But don’t ever question their patriotism!
#3

On July 24th, 2007 at 9:38 am, bipartisancomplainer said:

Are fact-checking departments a thing of the past at publications?
#4

On July 24th, 2007 at 9:47 am, Brian72 said:

This story is probably going to turn out like John F’n Kerry’s “Magic Hat” Cambodia tale. It’s just too convenient for the libtards at TNR.

My man Uncle Jimbo delivers a verbal beat-down on this topic over at Blackfive, and there is a nice transcript of what the U.S.-Syria-Iran conference would entail were he the American representative. I like his diplomatic style.

AS far as the TNR story goes, I think this paragraph sums up my opinion very well.

Scott Thomas is a lying sack of sh*t. Every unit has a Scott Thomas, the whiny pi**@nt whose brilliance is never recognized and who is always being abused by the chain of command for stuff that’s not his fault. It would be normal to hear folks telling him to STFU and do his damn job.

The stories he peddled were easy to believe if your mindset starts with soldiers as knuckle dragging, jack-booted barbarians barely held in check by the enlightened scrutiny of a vigilant press. Sadly that is the status quo among most of the media and gives us “reporting” colored darkly by the biases of these people. They have their narrative down and it involves US military barbarity so when they got a big plate of scrumptious horror they scarfed it right up.

(edited for cleanliness by me)

Well, there you go. Is there any way that “Scott Thomas” is really Bill Burkett, hunting for a Kinko’s at FOB Falcon?

I’m inclined to think this story is a fabrication, but even if it is true in any way, the Author is incriminating himself. There will be an investigation by the military authorities and we will find out one way or another. The shame of it is that will take time.

A lie travels around the world before the truth get it’s boots on.
#5

On July 24th, 2007 at 9:49 am, reppac122 said:

Remember, for liberals, it’s not the nature of the evidence (real or fake) that is relevant. It’s the seriousness of the charge. The action line is: US military is evil and Iraq War is bad. The NY Times coming out and actually reporting this story is like the pot calling the kettle black.
#6

On July 24th, 2007 at 9:58 am, Brian72 said:

On July 24th, 2007 at 9:49 am, reppac122 said:

Remember, for liberals, it’s not the nature of the evidence (real or fake) that is relevant. It’s the seriousness of the charge.

You are right, unless the serious charge is that someone’s political shenanigans are endangering our troops and emboldening the enemy. That is a serious charge. Somehow the lib equation doesn’t apply in that case.

The charge is conveniently dismissed out of hand, like the seriousness of the charge makes it patently unbelievable. No such luck when the charge is against our uniformed personnel, be they military overseas or law enforcement here at home trying to protect all of us. Just look at the political careers of two people to illustrate my point:

John F’n Kerry
“Rev.” Al Sharpton
#7

On July 24th, 2007 at 10:03 am, crashemt said:

Remember, for liberals, it’s not the nature of the evidence (real or fake) that is relevant. It’s the seriousness of the charge.

Unless that charge is using your position of power to rape a woman. Or using your authority to justify illegal financial deals. Those are OK, if you are a Democrat.
#8

On July 24th, 2007 at 10:18 am, NeoConNews said:

When the subject is as serious as this, I’m hard pressed to think of a legitimate reason why you would go to print with this before lining up more than a handful of corroborating witnesses. If for no other reason than the sensational nature of the allegations. Then again, where would the media be if it didn’t sensationalize?
#9

On July 24th, 2007 at 10:54 am, Bithead said:

I am not altogether comfortable with Michelle’s use of words, here. The use of the word “hoax” suggests that the newspapers in question were not willing participants , that the writers pulled something over on the paper. “Hoax” may very well be an accurate description, but the frequency with which this is occurring suggests that the actual hoax is being perpetrated by the papers, on the American people…
#10

On July 24th, 2007 at 11:06 am, Brian72 said:

Hoax is an okay description, if what the “author” asserts is a fabrication. That just means that TNR became willing accomplices in the hoax because it fit their agenda to slander the military. I don’t think they can say that they were “fooled” with any credibility, just like CBS was not fooled by Burkett, they joined him in his efforts, and became a perpetrator also. That’s why I smell a rat.
#11

On July 24th, 2007 at 11:17 am, publiuswarmac9999 said:

In the great world of liberalism, perception is reality. Time after time, we read untruths which are later racanted, but the damage is done and the recantation is forgotten as the news train moves on. The Scott Thomas musings are just too convenient, and remind me of the fauxtography exposed last year.

Examples of perception becoming reality comes to mind: One book written by a feminist stated that there were 100,000 plus anorexic women in the USA. When an analysis was done on this claim, the number dropped to a few thousand or even as little as 500. Unfortunately, the 100,000 plus number remains in the popular jargon and there is no way to squash it. The same applies to homosexuality where the homosexual lobby advertises that 10% of the population is homosexual. Study after study, including a recent very large Canadian study, shows that the real number is about 2% - yet the 10% number is still in the print media. (Even O’Reilly puts out a bogus 6% number without sourcing it.)

When political correctness takes over, anything is possible and anything will be pushed to make a point. Beware the propaganda that masquerades as truth.
#12

On July 24th, 2007 at 11:22 am, Brian72 said:

Hey guys

Was wondering if you’d had a chance to see the latest cover of TIME Magazine about a US withdrawal from Iraq. It’s all nice and sentimental from a liberal perspective…a graphic of a helo lifting off the “A,” which is covered in a US flag motif, from the word “IRAQ.” Story at:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1644877,00.html

Great imagery to match the fall of Saigon, right? But look closely at the silhouette of the chopper. It’s a Soviet-era Mi-24 “Hind” gunship!!!!!!! It was no doubt stock clip art dropped in by some person in their art department who wouldn’t know an M-16 from an F-16, but nice Freudian touch, TIME!!!!

Yes, I suppose it is somewhat fitting that a leading US media outlet would depict a Communist chopper hoisting the American flag out. But I still giggled.

Keep up the great work, and thank you for your service…

Best,
John

That is an email published at Blackfive illustrating just what a bunch of numbskulls are covering our military for the American people. This is supposed to be a premier source for news for millions of people here in our country. They don’t even know the difference between a Huey and a Hind! Didn’t these guys watch Red Dawn? Or Rambo? There were Soviet Hind choppers in a starring role. Kinda like Nancy “I support our troops who wear Canadian uniforms” Pelosi.
#13

On July 24th, 2007 at 11:51 am, Artbyruth said:

My gosh, don’t they realize how these stories can be checked now using the internet??

I mean, when Stephen Glass did this, the internet was still pretty new to people. But now???

WAKE UP Liberals. Most of the planet knows how to use the internet to fact check stories….sheesh. Ever hear about military bloggers???

They (Libs) still think they are the smartest people in the room and all others are idiots. They still condescend to their audience.
Sickens me….
#14

On July 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm, 3Steps said:

They don’t care if it’s true. They just hoped to skate it under the radar. They should have known better given the nature of what they were printing.
#15

On July 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

One thing I notice about liberals is that when they are losing an argument they resort to vulgar language and personal attacks. We are trying to discern the facts, and they keep pulling these propaganda stunts.

I used to think that liberals paid attention to lies and were offended by them like me. But after Clinton, I now believe that there is an entirely new class of liberals who like lies - and the bigger and more outrageous the better.
#16

On July 24th, 2007 at 3:44 pm, 509th Bob said:

Has anyone seen the spoon by the brain photograph touted by “The Nation”? I keep seeing references about the photo, but cannot find a shot of it. Before I accuse the leftists of creating another lie, I’d like to know if this story has been confirmed.
#17

On July 25th, 2007 at 12:32 am, terrig said:

Some of the stuff that “Scott” posts are just impossible to have happened. However, echoing what others have said, they want it to be true. They “support the troops” you know even though most of them believe they’re stupid individuals who cannot do anything else or are some poor kid from rural America, or the ghetto and have no other options to get in Ricky Lake’s words “in education”.
Anyway, I won’t deny that there have been a few bad apples but they are in no way representative of the US military no matter how much the liberals want it to be true. Being a liberal means you never have to say you’re sorry for anything you did.