The story as I saw it ten minutes ago.

Last paragraph:

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with "near certainty" that he is, in fact, a soldier.

That's the end of the story; nothing follows, as you can see from my screecap above.

The new version:

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with "near certainty" that he is, in fact, a soldier.

After this article appeared, Mr. Foer said he was "absolutely certain" that the author is a soldier.

There's nothing really nefarious here, I guess. The NYT owes it to Foer to note his new, less nuanced position on the identity of "Scott Thomas." They're just adding in some, errm, context that probably should have in the first new version of the story, but didn't get to it to a few minutes ago.

So no big deal, I guess, except we're seeing, yet again, how that sausage is made. It's often not as pretty as the sausage-manufacturers at the NYT would have you believe, with their vaunted multiple layers of painstaking editorial oversight and rigorous fact-checking.

I guess this is what happens when you try editing your reporter's story on the fly, after it's already been published.

Again: For the NYT's and Franklin Foer's benefit, these edits and fact-checks are really better done before publishing.

Thanks to Dusty.

Posted by: Ace at 01:43 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Check it out. First there, then gone, then back again:

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with "near certainty" that he is, in fact, a soldier.

Awww... the kids got caught and had to put the cookies back in the jar.

It's suggested to me by an emailer that this had nothing to do with the reporter, who presumably stood by her work from the get-go, but by her editors -- and the NYT senior staff, likely, wishing to protect a very-liberal media ally possibly on its last legs.

More Coming: You'll probably want to check back with the Weekly Standard blog for additional information. Goldfarb is on the lead in this story and never fails to round-up liks about it.

What We Know. Or, rather, kinda know.

1) The reporter who wrote this piece stands by her story. This is evidenced by second-hand, unverified suggestions to me. It is more strongly evidenced by the simple fact the "near certainty" quote is back in the story -- ergo, the NYT believes it was accurate. If the reporter had much doubt about her quote, presumably the NYT would have resolved the dispute in favor of Foer.

2) Of course, the NYT seems to have always believed it was accurate; they never issued a correction, they simply stealthily deleted it from the article, sans correction, sans notice.

3) They seem to have done this -- and by "they," I mean editors and senior staff -- due to the protestations/pleadings from Franklin Foer.

4) Franklin Foer and his editors running the Plank (TNR's blog) never accused the NYT of misquoting Foer. This could be due to an honest disagreement over what was said, with both reporter and subject having good-faith belief in what was said. However, it seems to me only the reporter was actually taking notes. Notes are not infallible, God knows, but on balance, I think it's fair to say Foer said "near certainty."

5) And further, it's a fair guess that the deal worked out between the NYT and Foer was that he would not accuse them of misquoting, but they would do a quickie edit and hope no one noticed. Rhetorical question: Is this a common practice at the NYT -- protecting ideological allies from their damaging statements by omitting them from articles?

6) Foer, on the balance of evidence, then, did say he had only a "near certainty" as to his "Baghdad" Diarist's actual identity as a US soldier serving in Iraq. He insists now he is "absolutely" certain -- but what would cause him to misspeak so disastrously? Why the hedge? Why the caution? And, if Foer isn't quite certain this guy is even a soldier, Jesus! That doesn't say much about his confidence in the stories his "Baghdad" Diarist has been spitting out, does it?

7) As many have noted, it seems sort of strange for Foer to say now, after having run the pieces, he'll actually bother to do some investigating to determine if they're actually true. Shouldn't that, you know, have come before printing them? There seems little doubt, given TNR's current "investigation" of the "reports," without being to offer any evidence for their veracity right up-front, that TNR is engaged, yet again, in a Panglossian, or, should I say, Stephen Glassian faith in its "reporters" to report accurately, without making the slightest effort to verify their stories before publishing them.

It should also be noted that Foer speaks of having "confidence" in these stories being true -- and yet offers no tangible, factual basis for that confidence. He continually offers us only his own personal evaluation of the evidence... but, remarkably, not the evidence itself. Not even a digest of what that evidence might be. It's rather clear that Foer, at this point, really has no earthly idea if these reports are true or false. What he does seem to have, understandably, is a desperate hope these stories are accurate, and that the verification he should have secured before running them will reveal itself in the fullness of time. Whether that happens or not, TNR is guilty, yet again, of egregious journalistic malpractice.

...

And... It's possible, possible my hunch about the "Baghdad Diarist" beginning his TNR career as an (unhinged moonbat) liberal commenter may have been accurate. Not the two possibles and one may have been in there.

I'll let you know. We (me and my Google Dude) have found a guy posting at TNR who claims to be an Iraqi soldier and also, um, is the sort of person TNR would want "covering" the war for them.

Is it our man Scott Thomas? Hard to say. But I do insist that my theory -- that a commenter on TNR was contacted by an editor to do some "reporting" -- is the most likely. How else would the uber-liberal office-drones of TNR have even come across a soldier in Baghdad? The magazine does very little actual reportage (and for good reason-- see Shallitt, Ruth, and Glass, Stephen) and I doubt that any of the editors and writers know more than one or two veterans among them.

The other possibility is that they met this guy at an anti-war or pro-progressive-causes confab or rally or whatnot. Still, I like my theory more, given that if the guy is really in Baghdad (which Franklin Foer knows to a "near certainty") his opportunities to meet the DC-based TNR geeks would be rather limited.

Posted by: Ace at 12:41 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 962 words, total size 6 kb.

A-har-har-har.

I've long wondered precisely how much jack these idiots were actually spending to make their lavish lifestyles supposedly "carbon neutral." It is simply not credible that a jetsetting millionaire -- one of the top 1000 carbon producers on the planet, in all of earth's history -- can spend a thousand dollars a year in Carbon Indulgences and make himself carbon neutral.

And that's what I've long figured these people were spending -- somewhere between $600 and $2000 bucks. Tops. Al Gore, I figured, being such a great big douche, probably spends more, in the $3000 range.

Well, now I have partial confirmation on that figure. If the carbon produced by a film, including all office space, power, heating, food transport, etc., can be offset by a mere $480 American, then I can't imagine Sheryl Crowe is paying more than that to "offset" the thousands of tons of CO2 she produces every single concert.

Hey, here's a question -- why isn't the MSM actually asking what these supposedly-carbon-neutral ecopaths are actually spending to insure their lifestyles are, in fact, carbon neutral?

Have any of you heard a single media buffoon express any amount of interest in this rather obvious point? Ever?

Why is not proper to ask how much Gore spends to "offset" his multi-million dollar lifestyle?

And if it's a pittance, as I imagine -- 1% or so, tops -- then it appears that 90% of the American population owes nothing at all, for even on our most enviromentally villainous days -- say, a summer cookout -- we don't produce the carbon that Al Gore, Sheryl Crowe, and Laurie David produce while taking a dump of average duration.

Posted by: Ace at 12:12 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

Actually, they say she's just a environmental hypocrite and a trashy whore.

This isn't me talking; these are her neighbors. And they live in Martha's Vinyard, so they're not riff-raff. A cut above, you know. Capital chappies.

Actually, Laurie David has been creating one HUGE carbon footprint here on Martha's Vineyard for the last 6 years. Her disgusting and ostentatious trophy building has been virtually ceaseless for about 6 years now. The trucks and pollution stop only when Mrs. Carbon Sasquatch is here for her summer vacation, making herself the center of everyone's attention.

And I'd say the fact that I saw Laurie and her hottie but dumb building contractor, Bart Thorpe, holding hands while walking on a secluded dock to a boat yesterday, has a lot more to do with her marriage breaking up than the scratchy toilet paper she's forced on her family. I've also seen Bart bicycling in front of my house with a little girl he kept calling, Romy [Laurie's daughter is named Romy]. Bart, coincidentally, left his wife recently, too.

I met Laurie David 6 years ago. I didn't like her then. I don't like her now. She is the prime example of a spoiled, selfish, rich girl who says, "do what I say, not what I do". She is a narcissist and a hypocrite to the nth degree.

Hmmm... consider: Thanks to Laurie David's whorish homewrecking, people who used to live in two huge, carbon-wasting homes are now forced to live in four huge, carbon-wasting homes.

Her twat, in other words, just doubled the carbon footprint of two families.

Just saying. Does her gyney have its own carbon offsets?

Thanks to Ken.

Say, Do You Think...? Was this episode autobiographical?

Low-to-moderate content warning for this Curb Your Enthusiasm clip.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

Actually, they say she's just a environmental hypocrite and a trashy whore.

This isn't me talking; these are her neighbors. And they live in Martha's Vinyard, so they're not riff-raff. A cut above, you know. Capital chappies.

Actually, Laurie David has been creating one HUGE carbon footprint here on Martha's Vineyard for the last 6 years. Her disgusting and ostentatious trophy building has been virtually ceaseless for about 6 years now. The trucks and pollution stop only when Mrs. Carbon Sasquatch is here for her summer vacation, making herself the center of everyone's attention.

And I'd say the fact that I saw Laurie and her hottie but dumb building contractor, Bart Thorpe, holding hands while walking on a secluded dock to a boat yesterday, has a lot more to do with her marriage breaking up than the scratchy toilet paper she's forced on her family. I've also seen Bart bicycling in front of my house with a little girl he kept calling, Romy [Laurie's daughter is named Romy]. Bart, coincidentally, left his wife recently, too.

I met Laurie David 6 years ago. I didn't like her then. I don't like her now. She is the prime example of a spoiled, selfish, rich girl who says, "do what I say, not what I do". She is a narcissist and a hypocrite to the nth degree.

Hmmm... consider: Thanks to Laurie David's whorish homewrecking, people who used to live in two huge, carbon-wasting homes are now forced to live in four huge, carbon-wasting homes.

Her twat, in other words, just doubled the carbon footprint of two families.

Just saying. Does her gyney have its own carbon offsets?

Thanks to Ken.

Say, Do You Think...? Was this episode autobiographical?

Low-to-moderate content warning for this Curb Your Enthusiasm clip.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

A follow-up too big to tuck in as an update to the post.

The original NYT story ran thus:

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.

Note the quotes. The reporter is claiming here to not be paraphrasing, but taking the subject's words verbatim from his lips.

TNR objected and claimed on its site they were "absolutely" certain he was a soldier.

But note Foer does not claim to have been misquoted.

TNR readers may have seen this story in the New York Times today. The story says that TNR knows with "near certainty" that Scott Thomas is a soldier in Iraq. In fact, we know this with absolute certainty.

The NYT dutifully changed the story (without making note it was correcting what is a blatant error, assuming it was an error, as is its practice) and has now omitted the "with 'near certainty'" line from its piece.

"The Editors" (Foer, I imagine, chief among them) wrote this "clarification." They do not claim Foer was misquoted, merely that the quote does not accurately reflect the situation.

So it appears by TNR's tacit admission Foer did say this. It further appears that the NYT changed a killer quote to protect Foer's magazine from Foer's quote.

Why?

Why did the NYT reporter at first believe Foer had expressed only "near certainty" that the man claiming to be a soldier in Baghdad was in fact even a soldier a Baghdad? Where did he get this impression? Are the words in his notebook? May we see them?

Why did Foer only originally say he was "nearly certain" his alleged soldier was even a solider at all?

Why did the NYT alter the story without alerting the public it was doing so, and without explaining the reasons for the alteration?

Has the NYT caved under pressure from TNR to change the quote, with Foer claiming he misspoke and shouldn't have that error held against him? But if that's the case, why did he misspeak? Why was he initially only comfortable giving this "maybe, I think" quasi-verification of his diarist's mere identity?

The Times needs to explain this. So does TNR. And their stories had better fucking match up.

Someone made a rather major error here, and it is actually crucial to the story -- indeed, it's what the NYT used to be in the business of reporting, actual big news -- if Foer was the one who "misspoke."

So I want to know who erred here -- the reporter in his notes/quotes, or Foer in the words he chose to vouch for his "Baghdad" diarist. Neither side is willing to say; the NYT is merely deleting the reference, and TNR "clarifying" without actually assigning blame?

If it was the NYT, fine, but they better goddamn finally admit an error and explain that error.

But I doubt that's what happened. TNR could have said that Foer was misquoted. They didn't. Because you don't stick a knife into someone who's saving your fucking life.

If it was Foer, I want to know why the NYT has changed his actual quote just because he called them on the phone and pleaded "Please don't run that, it's far too damaging to TNR! We only barely survived Stephen Glass for God's sakes!"

Would they be so generous about "helping" the editor of a conservative opinion magazine under scrutiny for running fake stories, I wonder?

Thanks to all the readers, including EC, for pointing this out.

Bonus: IllTemperedCur wonders when Foer could have met this person he knows "with near certainty" to be a soldier:

I still think that the money quote is "He said that he had met the writer". Since Foer is in DC and the diarist is supposedly a currently serving soldier in Iraq, when would they have met? If Foer hasn't traveled to Iraq recently, then the diarist must have been in the US sometime recently! That opens up lots of questions.

The big wedge to knock this down is the timeline.

Certainly it's not implausible the soldier -- or rather, the man we know "with near certainty" is a soldier -- was stateside at some point.

But there are questions. Why was this soldier in DC? How -- and why -- did he contact TNR in the first place? How did TNR establish his bona fides "with near certainty" during a stateside visit, which almost certainly was little more than a brief meet-up?

Screencap: Slublog ran his magic Lexis/Nexis wayback machine and sends this screencap of the story as it appeared originally.

Not that there's a whole lot of doubt about it; TNR itself notes what the story said (while curiously avoiding charging the NYT with an error). Still, best to have one's ducks all in a row when making a serious charge.

I guess. That's what people tell me, anyway.

Damnit: Slublog's screecap includes the line -- and yet my upload of that seems to end before the line, and I can't scroll down to see it. Anyone else having this problem?

I don't understand what's going on with this.

Hmm... Maybe you have to download the screencap and view it in paint-viewer program? When I click on it on my computer I can scroll down and see the whole thing. I just can't seem to do so in that pop-up.

The Obligatory Fake But Accurate Defense: This next quote can't be blamed on Franklin Foer. Or even the NYT. It's just from a commenter in the Plank "clarification" post named diggidy. Doesn't reflect on TNR... except, of course, it does re-state a rather disturbing belief on the left -- including among lefty journalists and pundits -- that the "fake but accurate" standard is a reasonable one:

His byline clearly states that he is a "Freelance Writer". He's a writer not a journalist.

He's capturing the feel of what is happening over there from the personal standpoint of a particular writer not attempting to capture specific facts. The overall story is more important than a series of actual events.

Silly me, I thought "the overall story" was "a series of actual events" accurately recounted.

But the lefties know better. There is truth, which is, let's face it, pretty boring and often disappointing in its refusal to reinforce your deeply held beliefs.

And then there is Truth, which is always satisfying, gratuitously so, almost to the point of pandering.

No wonder they have such a preference for the latter.

Tossing It Out There: I've figured, since the beginning of this, that the story of how "Scott Thomas" got in touch with TNR was fairly simple: "Scott Thomas" was commenter on the TNR blog, who had identified himself as a soldier in Iraq. An editor sent him an email, and thus thus the "Baghdad Diarist" was born.

My Google-Fu is remarkably weak, so I'll leave it to others to see if this leads anywhere.

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Comments (93)
Post contains 1219 words, total size 8 kb.

I didn't know this hot ghetto mess was still going on.

The university's governing board plans to hold a closed session on the Boulder campus today, and a decision on Churchill is expected in the middle of the afternoon.

According to the Denver Post, Churchill's supporters are planning to show their support at an afternoon rally. Churchill and his attorney will address the crowd when the decision comes down, press reports said.

A faculty panel recommended that Churchill be punished, but not fired. However, in a May 25 letter to the Board of Regents, CU President Hank Brown recommended that Churchill be dismissed for "conduct which falls below the minimum standards of professional integrity."

...

A panel eventually concluded that he had plagiarized, fabricated and falsified some of his research and writings.

Churchill's liberal supporters insist that he's being fired for voicing unpopular views. Churchill himself believes "that going through my scholarship with a fine-tooth comb was simply a pretext to fire me for my constitutionally protected speech."

...

The Denver Post editorial board is among those urging that Churchill be fired, however -- not for his unpopular opinions, but for making "a mockery of thoughtful academic research."

According to the editorial, the Churchill "fiasco" has gone on long enough. "When the CU regents meet today to consider Churchill's fate, they should fire him," the newspaper said, adding that "neither the First Amendment nor principles of academic freedom are an inoculation against academic misconduct."

Indeed, leftist websites and groups are urging readers to demand the Board of Regents keep him on -- precisely because of his Little Eichmanns comment. Mocking the terrorist victims of 9/11, and praising the terrorists, is not only to be praised in and of itself, but making such atrocious comments furthermore protects the speaker from serious charges of academic dishonesty, fabrication, plagiarism, and simply submoronic "work."

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

Jennifer Hunter, columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, knows the sorts of stories her employees want. 1) War protesters are all very normal Middle-Americans with no history of previous political agitation and in fact are all patriotic grandmas who are lifelong Republicans, and 2) lifelong Republicans are forced by conscience to disown the GOP.

She offers up Story Type 2 here. So what if the guy's actually a very partisan, and generous, liberal? What's important is the metanarrative, the Greater Truth that the GOP sucks balls.

On July 16, Ms. Hunter wrote a column which began: "After watching the top five Democratic candidates for president speak before a trial lawyers' group Sunday, attorney Jim Ronca of Philadelphia, a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing: He is not going to vote for a Republican in the 2008 presidential election."

A suspicious reader checked out Mr. Ronca's political contributions. Mr. Ronca had made 14 since 1994 -- 12 to Democrats. The Democratic candidates received $7,000; the GOP candidates $750.

Mr. Ronca's contribution record was posted on several Web sites, whose readers flooded Ms. Hunter with demands for a correction.

If Ms. Hunter had fessed up, I wouldn't be writing about her. But she responded by attacking Web loggers for doing the research she should have done, and blaming her error on her editor.

She claimed the editor distorted her piece by elevating an insignificant (non-) fact to the headline. But, alas, that supposedly meaningless (non-) fact was contained in her lede.

Dumb editor! Thinking her lede sentence could possibly be important!

Posted by: Ace at 09:24 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Hmm...

Lindsay Lohan was busted for drunk driving and drug possession on Tuesday, 11 days after completing an alcohol treatment program following her arrest in May for similar charges, police and reports said.

The 21-year-old actress was pulled over by officers in Santa Monica early Tuesday and booked on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, police sergeant Robert Hernandez said.

She was initially detained in lieu of 25,000 dollars bail before being released, reports said.

Celebrity news website TMZ.com reported meanwhile that Lohan, the star of "Herbie Fully Loaded" had also been charged with possession of cocaine.

Okay, not really surprising. But 3rd_Bird sends this slideshow to document the occasion. It's funny, it's goofy, and it has that old Chuck Mangione instrumental I haven't heard since second grade. And a surprise guest star.

Posted by: Ace at 09:09 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Just noting it for the record; there's nothing here new or worthy of your time.

Except for this tasty nugget:

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows that he is, in fact, a soldier.

Well! Talk about rigorous factual verification! That new system they put in place after Stephen Glass is really bangin' on all cylinders now! They've confirmed, without question, the man is in fact a soldier.

Also confirmed: He is bidpedal, carbon-based, and possesses the preferred number of heads (1).

Posted by: Ace at 09:01 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.