Left Flank

So, Michael Goldfarb, troublemakers? I guess, to be generous, this is the Jeffersonian perspective on IR. Or, is PRC just a dumping ground for unwanted Hollywood performers?

Lest I be unfair, Robert Farley, could you sound any more wishy-washy? Odious events, but odious? What, are we splitting metaphysical hairs? What do you care about?

I hope this is not the best on PRC American academia and punditry have to offer!

TNR accuses the «Army» of bad faith. Michael Yon calls TNR «...a group of cowards who won't 'fess up and can't face the scorn of American combat soldiers who were injured by their collective lapse of judgment.» Ace of Spades argues likewise:

TNR, on the other hand, chose to stonewall, obfuscate, and lie. They had highly relevant information about the stories' veracity in their hands. They simply refused to report that information, for fear others might not read the transcripts as generously as they were inclined to.

Other bloggers (via ROK Drop, thanks for the original heads up) whose work I respect have also criticized TNR thoroughly. Chris Lemieux makes good points until he defends TNR's Franklin Foer. Finally, Michael Goldfarb recounts his side of the story «That Took Forever».

Really, I think everyone is right, by their own self-appointed standards. Beauchamp's «work» was forgettable, and his service to his unit neglected. The soldiers and leadership in his unit should feel uneasy about Beauchamp's decision to consider his «work' more important than his job. And, I know full well from personal experience the «Army» guards its reputation jealously, and that's not a bad thing. Finally, Goldfarb and TNR's Franklin Foer didn't hurt their reputations with their core constituencies with their «work», even if I think Goldfarb went over the top, and that Foer's conduct in the telephone interviews and his attempts to turn an editorial error into an ideological contest with Goldfarb were both outrageous. Really, Foer's conduct has made partisan mudslinging tedious. It's çráp all around, and, I'm convinced, for no benefit.

Who cares about the substance of Beauchamp's «work»!

I subscribed to TNR less than a year ago because i wanted to read a reliable national journal. I was oblivious of TNR's previous editorial scandals. I've found TNR somewhat inconsistent. and rarely am I overwhelmed, but usually disgusted, with editorials. The good stuff usually comes from a small group of columnists, like Michael Crowley, John Judis, and Josh Kurlantzick, as well as Beinart's and Goldberg's «What's Your Problem?». I had already started to reconsider my subscription renewal before the Beauchamp affair hit, and I had consciously put TNR on notice: unless there were an unbroken pattern of excellent stories by the end of January, 2008, I would have probably not renewed the subscription. Now, I am almost certain I will not renew my subscription.

I want reliable reporting and insightful editorials, not shoddy management. And, my opinion counts in the only way it can in the real world - with my wallet!