Swanky Conservative

Two examples of craptastic journalism this week. First, from Blackfive, Time Magazine’s graphic on America retreating from Iraq.

One, it’s apparent to me that Time’s looking for the helicopter on the embassy roof in Saigon - type imagery. You have a stair-step shape up to the chopper made by the letters that I can’t help but see. Maybe I’m looking for it. I can live with that. It doesn’t help that Time is making it so easy for me to see. But the imagery isn’t the shoddy piece of journalism I’m going to complain about. Look at the helicopter. It’s not an American helicopter.

The helicopter silhouette that Arthur Hochstein used in creating this illustration is a Soviet-era M1-24 gunship. Also known as a “Hind”. These were the helicopters used in Afghanistan against the Mujahadeen. If you’ve ever seen Red Dawn, these gunships were what took out some of the teenaged insurgents near the end of the film. It’s not an American helo.

Yet we’re expected to believe it’s one with the subject of the article, the headline, and the American-flag emblazoned letter ‘A’ being airlifted out by the Hind.

On to the second example of journalism creating a steaming pile of crap and trying to pass it off as military reporting. The New Republic (subscription required, but there’s a Google cache here.) published a piece written by one Scott Thomas (no, not this Scott Thomas) which reads like something Joe Esterhaz would write. Mudville Gazette’s got a good rundown on the numerous red flags that are throughout this drivel. THe piece, a supposed diary by a supposed soldier serving in Iraq, starts like this:

I saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq. She wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn’t really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor. The thing that stood out about her, though, wasn’t her strange uniform but the fact that nearly half her face was severely scarred. Or, rather, it had more or less melted, along with all the hair on that side of her head. She was always alone, and I never saw her talk to anyone. Members of my platoon had seen her before but had never really acknowledged her. Then, on one especially crowded day in the chow hall, she sat down next to us.

1) I’ve never heard active guys call the mess area a chow hall. This guy must be old. 2) He couldn’t tell if she was a soldier? Soldiers in the field are in uniform at all times. It can’t be that hard to tell her status as serviceman or civilian.

Those are red flags in the first paragraph alone. The initial heavy lifting in calling BS on this article has been done by Michael Goldfarb at WorldwideStandard.com Milbloggers are reinforcing the call for TNR to provide supporting evidence for the claims made in this work of dreck. TNR’s response:

Several conservative blogs have raised questions about the Diarist “Shock Troops,” written by a soldier in Iraq using the pseudonym Scott Thomas. Whenever anybody levels serious accusations against a piece published in our magazine, we take those charges seriously. Indeed, we’re in the process of investigating them. I’ve spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine–and much to corroborate–the author’s descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation. –Franklin Foer

Mr. Foer, print the supporting evidence. Ask for statements from the chain of command for the “other soldiers who witnessed the events”. Dates and locations. Were there any other embeds or independent journalists in Forward Operating Base Falcon who could back up Thomas’s claims?

Right now, Foer’s statement brings to mind the CBS response during the Bush National Guard scandal that led to Dan Rather not being at CBS anymore. TNR’s been down the road of shoddy reporting before. You’d think they’d be more vigilant and, in these times of citizen journalism and hourly blogging, more transparent.