National Review rocked by controversy over fabricated stories

In retrospect, the National Review might have been better off not going after the Jayson Blair and Scott Thomas Beauchamp stories with so much enthusiasm. As Tom Edsall reports, the conservative political magazine has been publishing stories about events in the Middle East that were apparently fabricated.

There is a growing dispute over the veracity of reporting from Lebanon by former Marine W. Thomas Smith, Jr. who is posting reports on his blog, The Tank, published by the conservative website, National Review Online (NRO). Smith is a supporter of the war in Iraq, and is affiliated with two politically conservative organizations, the Counterterrorism Research Center and the Family Security Foundation. He is the executive editor of World Defense Review, and the co-author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design.

At question are two reports filed by Smith on The Tank — reports which appear to be designed to bolster support for the ongoing presence of U.S troops in the Mideast.

Edsall focuses specifically on a series of reports about Hezbollah activities that not only fail to withstand scrutiny, but may even “endanger the press corps in the troubled region.”

The Huffington Post contacted four professional journalists in the area, all of whom condemned Smith for publishing a variety of false reports. Michael Prothero, who has reported for Fortune, the Washington Times, and Slate, described Smith’s journalistic practices as “insane.” Chris Allbritton, who has reported from the Middle East since 2002 for Time, Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Times, and the Newark Star-Ledger, said Smith is a “fabulist,” whose reports document events that never occurred. A third journalist said, “Mr. Smith’s reporting contain[s] pure fabrications.”

Confronted with reality, Smith, who repeatedly blasted TNR and Beauchamp’s dubious reports, tried to backpedal.

“Now, should I have been more specific in my writing in terms of what I physically witnessed as opposed to what I learned from sources regarding the tent city? I wish I had, but it was a blog, which tends to be less formal. However, when blogs contain original reporting, that reporting needs to be sourced. In the future, I’ll provide more context.”

“Context” does not appear to be the problem here; reporting on fictional events as if they occurred in reality goes beyond simple questions of “context.”

Smith’s editors are also on the defensive.

NRO editor Kathryn Jean Lopez acknowledged that some of Smith’s work is “misleading.” In an email to the Huffington Post, Lopez said:

“Having done an internal review of his posts prompted by your queries (contacting experts here and on the ground, both his sources and independents), my sense is we should have provided readers more context in some of his Lebanon posts. Without malice – wanting to give a sense of the scene – the author gave an incomplete and therefore misleading picture in at least one post.”

What a tangled web they weave….

Update: Glenn Greenwald has a gem on all of this, including an exploration of the right’s breathtaking hypocrisy.

May I suggest that he work for the Onion? Of course he’ll have to hone his irony a bit.

  • “Now, should I have been more specific in my writing in terms of what I physically witnessed as opposed to what I learned from sources regarding the tent city? I wish I had, but it was a blog, which tends to be less formal. However, when blogs contain original reporting, that reporting needs to be sourced. In the future, I’ll provide more context.”

    Translation: I made shit up and now that I’m busted I’m making up a shitty excuse.

    Someone needs to scour the internons to see if he or Blowpez ever came down on a blogger for being inaccurate. I’m sure that never happened.

    Also, I thought earlier he blamed his “confusion” on the fact he witnessed things from the window of a moving car.

    Oh well. Just another day in the Land that Reality Forgot.

  • Smith is “the co-author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design.”

    I didn’t believe that there was such a book, but Amazon says it’s so.

    Is it just me, or is that the funniest, most ironic book title ever?

  • Since the GOP and its rabid followers don’t give two $hits about truth, does this really mean anything? You could slap them across the face with truth, pictures, witnesses, and everything else and they still wouldn’t believe. Unless one of their lying icons says it’s true, it’s not. Remember, up is down, left is right, black is white…and stupid friggin people will always be stupid friggin people.

  • Once again, a conservative promotes the idea that Truth has a liberal bias, gets caught, and begins to smolder….

  • The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design

    zzzzzzzzzzt…zzzzzzzzzzt…(sparks out of ears)…zzzzzzzzzzt…zzzzzzt…(eyes darting wildly seeking something solid to lock onto)…zzzzzzzzzzt…zzzzzzt…(queasy feeling in gut portending regurgitation)…zzzzzzzzzzzzzt…zzzzzzzzzzzzt…(mind flailing for remembrance of phrase Cognitive Dissonance)…zzzzzzzzzzzzt…zzzzzzzzzzzzt…(forced calmness and breath control as recognition of C.D. is realized)…zzzzzzzzzt…zzzzzt…(sleep, blessed sleep. briefly until next assault)…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….

    Man, when are these nightmares going to go away.

  • It is an interesting twist. The right wing has long been using Jayson Blair to bash the New York Times. It is a mistake. I have known Jayson for years, worked with him when he was a reporter, and I continue to handle public relations matters for him. I can say with conviction that Jayson had no political motive whatever for his fabrications. He was just a kid having a nervous breakdown brought about by untreated manic-depression. This in not to excuse his deceptions, but rather to rebut the pundits who ascribe political significance to what he did. The Times’ failure in the Jayson Blair affair was one of news management and employee relations — they should have seen that the kid was cracking up, but hiding his illness as best he could was also one of his many deceptions.

    Now, it appears that Mr. W. Thomas Smith, Jr., may have had a political motive for his alleged deceptions. We will not know until the results of a thorough investigation are made public — I, for one, do not pass judgment based on the reported quotes of a few colleagues — but if suspicions are true it says a lot about attacking perceived political opponents based on the assumption that every error they make is politically motivated.

    I should say that it is time to get back to arguing policy per se rather than attacking policy by attacking the character of its proponents.

  • It might be a twist, but really is seems to not be Smith’s fault, nor his fabrications.

    So far he reported armed men, a number and identity he was told, doing something… And really, in a war, there is only so much verification he can do. It’s up to the editors – and why are they nameless here? – to vet and match these reports against other reports in the area.

    That means sometimes reports are wrong, but why is this dangerous?

    Sometimes you see a storm cloud and it doesn’t spawn a tornado and might not even rain. That doesn’t mean anyone fabricated the storm.

  • Unreal, going after bull shit stories with more bull shit. Why not let the original stories sink on their own?????

  • Nice to see JRS Jr once again prove that Republicans are born with their head up their ass. Does anything you had to say, Junior, make the slightest sense?

  • Comments are closed.