Update: Also see this via Ace - has the New York Times altered a previously published piece on this issue?
Today's New York Times piece on The New Republic's now infamous as well as pseudonymous Baghdad diarist, Scott Thomas, begins ominously enough for TNR. Just who is the “Baghdad Diarist”? And it gets worse once you reach the final 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.
The questions in and around TNR's Scott Thomas began here at the Weekly Standard on July 18 and continue right through to today - plenty of links there to grasp the entire issue. Since when has near certainty become the standard for news, let alone publishing what amounts to slanderous allegations maligning the entire American military at a time when this country is at war?
A few pertinent quotes below from three different sections of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Even if TNR Editor Foer is somehow successful in running around behind himself to cover The New Republic at this late date, it's impossible to conclude anything other than that he has, in principle, already violated each of the ethical standards expressed below. Well over 3,000 noble young Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and Franklin Foer took the liberty of maligning them, their memory and the reputations of the over 100,000 members of our military currently serving in Iraq. And he did it because he was nearly certain what he was publishing was simply coming from a member of the armed forces, putting aside whether these tales are actually true, or not. That's not enough, not nearly enough, particularly given TNR's past institutional experience with Stephen Glass. It's time for Franklin Foer to be, shall we say, re-deployed.
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
Minimize Harm
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
Be Accountable
Thanks Dan. How many of these panty waist cowards who are so quick to malign our boys and their reputation are also ready to put on body armor and helmet, go over to Iraq and live with the boys day by day, and get a real story to bring back to the American people.
Gahhh! God give us Ernie Pyle back for a year or two! Please?
Posted by: Herschel Smith | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 09:46 AM
"God give us Ernie Pyle back for a year or two! Please?"
We've got several on the ground who are actually better than Pyle was. Yon, Roggio and Fumento leap to mind.
You won't find their reporting in the MSM though. You have to seek it out.
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Being certain after a week that the pseudonymous accuser is a soldier I guess is enough for TNR. How about the substance of the allegations? Or the fact that certain "facts" dont seem to add up very well. And why wasn't the editor of the TNR all over this prepublication, and not finding the effort tough slogging on an after the "smear" basis? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 03:35 PM
Heh. I note that last 'graf has changed. Now “near certainty” has been taken out:
"He said that he had met the writer and that he knows that he is, in fact, a soldier."
(But the old version is "out there" too . . . for example:
http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/07/24/doubts-raised-on-magazines-baghdad-diarist/ )
Posted by: Cecil Turner | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 04:07 PM
Yeah, Little Green Footballs is reporting that the NYTs has removed their earlier statement that Thomas was a soldier as a matter of "near certainty".
Now they're saying he is/was a soldier in fact. Over at the NYTs, it's like 1984, looseleaf history. Stalin would be proud.
Posted by: Increase Mather | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 04:17 PM
Yeah, and I see from the update Ace had the full story, including the back-and-forth with TNR, before I even noticed it'd changed. Nice work!
Posted by: Cecil Turner | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 04:36 PM