« Alec Rawls Continues to Fight Flight 93 Memorial Abomination | Main | Topless Moonbats Crash Shrillaryfest »
July 24, 2007
New Republic Accused of Fabricating News Again
What have we here? From none other than Jayson Blair's old employer, The Gray Hag:
Just who is the "Baghdad Diarist"?
It is a question that many people are asking The New Republic, the [left-leaning] 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. […]
The diaries have described some shocking incidents of military life, including soldiers openly mocking a disfigured woman on their base and a private wearing a found piece of a child's skull under his helmet.
But why would an MSM outlet want to make up stories about American soldiers being mean and morbid? After all, even liberals support the troops.
Come to think of it, why do they report this stuff even if it's true? They must think it's more germane than reporting on the troop surge working.
Posted by Van Helsing at July 24, 2007 11:51 AM
Comments
Take virtually everything you see or hear on the MSM (or the "drive-by media," as they are aptly called), turn it around 180 degrees, and you've got something approximating the truth. 'Twas ever thus, and ever shall be.
Posted by: jc14 at July 24, 2007 7:55 PM
Didn't Dan Rather point out something along the lines of: "Just because it isn't true doesn't mean it couldn't have happened."
And liberals will keep telling you it happened until it becomes "historic truth".
Posted by: Jimbo at July 25, 2007 4:47 AM
