December 4, 2007
THE LIBERAL DEFENSE PAR EXCELLENCE--"I'M A VICTIM!":
The Lessons of TNR's Baghdad Diarist: The good news about the bad news the magazine is finally accepting (Jack Shafer, Dec. 4, 2007, Slate)
When the Weekly Standard and others attacked Beauchamp's work in July, Foer snottily shot back via the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz. "As the criticism mounts, Foer says he sees an ideological agenda," Kurtz wrote, and went on to quote Foer discounting the prejudices of his attackers: "Conservative bloggers make a bit of a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq." In his piece, he muses about the Standard's "ideological motives."Please! It only stands to reason that TNR's ideological opponents should be the magazine's most intense critics. Foer doubly embarrasses himself by dismissing the arguments because of their origins and by hinting at a conspiracy.
Nor did Foer distinguish himself when he protested to the New York Observer in late October that it was "maddening to see the Army selectively leak" documents to the Drudge Report that he had tried to obtain through official channels. "This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs," he said.
Politicians disparage selective leaks, not journalists. If only Foer had repressed his sense of victimhood and applauded the release of information rather than whined.
Foer's TNR piece, titled "Fog of War," builds oddly, as if it's mounting a defense of Beauchamp's work and TNR's editing practices. For instance, Foer insists on continuing to call Beauchamp's placement of the now-famous disfigured woman in Iraq rather than Kuwait, where she allegedly suffered abuse, a "mistake." If Beauchamp had a sterling record, you might want to give him that benefit of the doubt. But given what we know about him from Foer's piece alone, he's owed no such deference. As the article turns the corner in the final paragraphs and withdraws its support from the controversial diarist, who has failed to give the magazine the complete cooperation it needs to defend him, it sounds as if Foer is hedging his position. The effect is as if a piece breathing life back into Beauchamp was at the last minute welded to his death portrait. Very odd.
It's only odd if you believe he's accepting responsibility. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 4, 2007 9:11 PM
Tow years ago, ff someone at a cocktail party (or a nerd party) had accused Foer of being a Harry Reid clone, he probably would have been insulted.
"That corrupt bumpkin, I'm nothing like him!"
But they have staked out the same ground - any word, any tactic is permissible if it will simultaneously exploit and slander the military.
A few years ago, Jonathan Chait famously said he hates George Bush. He admitted it drives him. Hatred motivates people to do very stupid things. Foer should just say so. But nobody on the Left wants to be called stupid (and especially not by the Right).
Posted by: ratbert at December 5, 2007 12:07 AMPoliticians disparage selective leaks, not journalists.
The assumption that people like Foer are not politicians makes the rest of the analysis useless, because the assumption is wrong. Also implicit in the assumption is that the being a politician and being a journalist are mutally exclusive, when any competent observer knows they aren't.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 5, 2007 10:57 AM