If there is a thread in GD about a conservative magazine fabricating a story?
Or is there a conservative magazine that’s fabricated a story?
I’m not aware of either a thread about such an event, or such an event.
And why not? Where do his loyalties belong - to The New Republic or to the United States Army? And I challenge you to explain to me how he can faithfully execute his responsibilities to both of his employers, each of whom have rather different expectations of him.
I’m reminded sometimes of Ernie Pyle, the quintessential battlefield correspondent. His reporting was instrumental in getting soldiers combat pay. He carried dogtags, ate rations, wore olive drab, slept in the cold, and was killed alongside Marines on Iejema. Few men have understood soldiers as well as he - including most soldiers.
But his uniform carried no insignia. Pyle was a civilian working for Scripps Howard.
If there were an incident involving conservatives fabricating news and no GD thread would that disprove your little theory?
Moto
His loyalties, as soldier and citizen, are properly assigned to us. Which, in my estimation, includes telling us unpleasant truths. YMMV.
Well, I don’t know how to search for thread titles with words that only contain 4 letters or less, otherwise I’d do a search for “Fox” and “News”, and I think I’d probably find something.
You can search for words with 4 or more letters (v. ‘more than 4’) but I’ve found that it’ll reject searches for some short words because they’re too common. I don’t know if ‘news’ falls into that category. (Obviously, ‘Fox’ is out, period.)
In response to the OP’s query about why this hadn’t been brought up sooner, I actually considered it. I caught wind of the story, and made a tour of tighty-righty sites to note with calm disdain how they worked themselves into a frenzy over it. It was over almost as quickly as it began: when discordant facts emerged, they simply said “Case closed!” and that was that.
And the news is…what? That war brutalizes its participants as surely as it exterminates its victims? This hasn’t been news since 500 B.C.E.
So what’s the deal? This is an unpleasant truth, but not news? If it wasn’t news, why couldn’t it have waited until discharge?
Yeah, you might say: War is hell.
Well, I think we need a bit more detail. The New Republic is a magazine of some reputation. I would say that if there were a conservative source of similar gravitas fabricating news and no thread at all commenting upon it, it would certainly hurt my theory.
Either it’s so well established it isn’t newsworthy, or it’s so completely unbelievable that it must be a fabrication put over on The New Republic. Which is it?
As for me, I suspect that a reminder about the dehumanizing aspects of war would serve pretty well to contrast the steely-eyed rock-steady glorious mythos we infuse our caricatures of our soldiers. We might do well to remember that supporting the troops means more than putting a yellow bumper magnet on our cars and voting for the Republicans.
I think that is important for all of us to remember, and I do hope your support extends further than posts on a message board.
It’s an unpleasant truth - and obviously sufficiently unpalatable that the wingnuts went apeshit over Beauchamp’s accounts. That in itself indicates that it’s news, don’t you think?
Let’s put it this way: a lot of things that are ‘news’ are only news to those who haven’t been paying attention. That war is an ugly, brutal, dehumanizing business, rather than a glorious, heroic dulce et decorum est adventure, is something that has to be re-learned each generation. Especially in an era of high-tech war with laser-guided bombs and whatnot.
On preview, I see Hentor has said essentially the same thing already. But let me add that maybe such glimpses will help friends and relatives of returning soldiers to have a partial clue about why they’re a bit messed up in the head, as many of them are already, and more will be. And hopefully such glimpses will help the public be willing to support funding for the VA to treat this war’s inevitable head cases as Johnny comes marching home.
As to the question of Board criticism achieving fairness and balance… Gotta pick the most egregious barrell of horseshit to come from Fox News, or WorldNet, or any of a number of professional nitwits? Its like judging a swimsuit competition at a leper colony…
Personal favorite? I like being annoyed by Sean Hannity, so I caught this one live. Somebody found a cache of rusted out munitions somewhere in Iraq, and Sean went into shrieking wombat mode, demanding apologies from all the lefties/traitors who doubted the truthiness of the Leader, I mean, the guy was screeching foam-flecked like John Belushi’s old SNL sketch.
Next day, you may recall, the major news outlets advised that it was all road apples. And that night the Giant Head went right ahead on as though nothing had happened. Not even a mention. Galactic chutzpah.
Yes, and I hope your support extends beyond opposing those posts on a message board and shamelessly, ceaselessly, unfailingly, unflinchingly supporting those responsible for putting them where they are right now.
Okay, “factual” question here: has this writer been “debunked” or not? Hentor and RT are saying that a small, minor inconsistency has been exaggerated, and that’s it. The whole basis of the OP is that everything he’s said (or at the very least, his credibility) has been completely shattered on multiple points. Which is it?
I’d say that, as far as this thread so far is concerned, you’ve correctly stated my position.
I really haven’t been following the Beauchamp story all that closely, so AFAIK there might be damning evidence against him ‘out there’ somewhere. But since our OP, who’s not one of the duller tools in the shed by any means, hasn’t been able to produce any of it (ditto Mr. Moto, who’s had to fall back on simple “he shouldn’t have been playing reporter while soldiering” harping), my strong suspicion is that there’s no debunking ‘out there’ to be found.
In the sense that that description of his claim is fabricated as well? Link
Bolding added.
Care to acknowledge you told a falsehood there? :dubious:
What is there to fall back on? This has been my position from the start. And I haven’t come to any conclusions about Beauchamp’s truthfulness, though I am leaning in one way.
My position is that a reporter and a journalist hold very different jobs, and the requirements of each interfere with the duties of the other. This is pretty self-explanatory, yet nobody else here is talking about this fundamental problem - and the Weekly Standard and The New Republic are blowing it off as well.
It is clear why TNR is doing so, but the Weekly Standard’s ducking of this issue is less transparent. And it has to do with the desire of some conservatives to play up the contribution of certain milbloggers and cause their journalistic contributions to have a Christiane Amanpour sized impact.
Now, these guys can pose a major problem as well, unless they are embedded journalists from news organizations or with independent backing. Political ideology has less to do here than the incompatibilities I mentioned earlier.
Well, that’s kinda the main issue here: was “The New Republic taken in again?”
Have I misstated your position - that your only criticism relates to this side issue, and that you have contributed nothing on the main question?
That’s what Leaper asked for a status update on, and that’s what I’ve provided.
This is all quite interesting. How exactly does a “journalist” differ from a “reporter”? 