SDN has Found an "interesting" Board

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:11 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:Pajama's Media, you got anything more repuable than that?
How did you conclude that they are not reputable?
A dishonourable discharge is a blacklist, practically no one will touch you after that, and it's a pretty serious no-no not to disclose it upon hiring. It shows that you are a very unreliable person.
I would imagine a dishonorable discharge after a long career might raise eyebrows and perhaps even constitute a blacklisting in some quarters (whoa, it's like the Army fired him! What'd he have to do to make that happen?!), but I personally know a guy who was once young and stupid and wasn't in the Army too terribly long, receiving a dishonorable discharge. He was worried about revealing it (his fears upon finding a new job were the reason I learned of the DD), but has had no trouble with which I am aware. But again, he wasn't in long.

Neither, really, has Beauchamp. And again, given that his whole thing was to be a writer . . . I mean, do you really think he needed to be 'bonded' to write articles for lefty mags? I think not.

watchdog
Jedi Knight
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Not at home

Post by watchdog » Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:44 am

2046 wrote:Funny, that . . . he apparently offered to recant his claims the very same day that self-defense posted on TNR, reportedly signing an affadavit to that effect. (TNR claims this is not so, though they also seem to leave out the fact that the Army's investigated and found nothing to support Beauchamp's claims.)

Meanwhile, the Army's investigation has concluded that "the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

Furthermore, even if you put on your conspiracist thinking cap and presume that he was pressured into making the offer, isn't it odd that no independent sources can be found to corroborate his tales? Why can no one matching the description of the melted-faced woman he and his buddies supposedly made fun of be found, either in Iraq or Kuwait at locations he's been? (Iraq, Kuwait . . . take your pick, since even TNR expressed doubt as to the location, despite his standing by all his claims while recanting them.)
I'm hardly interested in the entire thing as I did not focus on the story when it was fresh, I will howerver post this paragraph from Media Matters. Take it how you want.
Meanwhile, warbloggers are cheering because an Army flack announced that the allegations Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp made as a diarist in the pages of The New Republic about abhorrent behavior by some of Beauchamp's fellow soldiers serving in Iraq were "false." Actually, to be precise, the Army, in its statement, announced that Beauchamp's "platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims." Basically, the Army couldn't confirm Beauchamp's reporting. But really, how hard did the Army try? About as hard as it tried to nail down the Pat Tillman story days after his death? And oh yeah, the Army will not make public the findings of its Beauchamp investigation; we just have to take their word for it.

I'll make two quick points. First, the fact that warbloggers have spent such an enormous amount of time and energy trying to fact-check a couple of diary entries from a modest-circulation weekly magazine, while Iraq, four years after the warbloggers' beloved invasion, continues to descend into even further turmoil, says a lot about how desperate the pro-war bloggers are to claim even the slightest semblance of victory on any Iraq-related topic.

Secondly, I'm feeling a distinct sense of déjà vu because last winter it was Pentagon sources who were whispering into the ears of warbloggers about how an Associated Press police source named Jamil Hussein was a fake, that he was a phony the AP had concocted as a way to fabricate bad news from Iraq. (Because, y'know, we're winning over there.) Indeed, the Hussein story only reached DEFCON level 5 among obsessive, dead-end warbloggers because a Pentagon official went on the record and declared that U.S. forces could find no proof that Hussein existed. (Sort of like the Pentagon this week declared it could find no proof that Beauchamp stories were true.)

For warbloggers, who pretend to be quasi-journalists, the statement from the Pentagon represented the only source they needed to declare Hussein a fake and a fraud. End of story.

Of course, later, thanks to the Iraqi government, we learned that the Pentagon got it 100 percent wrong because Jamil Hussein did exist, he was a police captain, and he was an AP source. Given that fact, and that the Pentagon left the warbloggers hanging out to dry on the Hussein story, forced to sputter on in defeat about how they had raised "valid questions" in the episode, you'd think the warbloggers would tread more carefully this time around. But warbloggers are incapable of embracing logic. Not when there's a chance to smear journalists. So once again, they say the only source they need to declare Beauchamp a fake is a Pentagon report they're not allowed to read, and a quote from a Pentagon source who won't go on the record, but who has already been contradicted by the Army's point person on this story.

And trust me, in the world of the press-hating warbloggers, where anti-press conspiracies are haphazardly stitched together, this is considered an air-tight case.

P.S. Is it too much to ask reporters who are covering the current TNR controversy to give news consumers some context and mention that warbloggers pretty much launched the exact same press jihad against the AP this winter and that warbloggers were completely discredited in the process?
The Pentagon isn't always trustworthy, believe me, I've had first hand experience with so-called military intelligence, Ft Huachuca is the MI headquarters, NetCom but you did not hear that from me ;)

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:37 am

watchdog wrote:Basically, the Army couldn't confirm Beauchamp's reporting. But really, how hard did the Army try?
And folks were shocked by "Betray-Us"?
Secondly, I'm feeling a distinct sense of déjà vu because last winter it was Pentagon sources who were whispering into the ears of warbloggers about how an Associated Press police source named Jamil Hussein was a fake, that he was a phony the AP had concocted as a way to fabricate bad news from Iraq.
Well-spun . . . I like all the 'bloggers being led by the gubbahment' paranoia . . . but it was quite telling that no one from the AP to the Iraqi government to all other players in the matter were able to produce any evidence this guy existed for weeks upon weeks, and that many of the most notorious 'facts' claimed from his reporting (such as the destruction of multiple mosques and burning of Sunnis one day) have been shown to be false. The AP's indignation was especially amusing given the earlier "photogate", not to mention the rather seemingly-stronger politicized reporting from circa late 2006.

This is actually a decent round-up of the story.
(Because, y'know, we're winning over there.)
We are.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:55 pm

2046 wrote:
How did you conclude that they are not reputable?
A media outlet that no ones heard of and appears to operate excusively on the net and is named Pajama's media? That's one step above a blog.
I would imagine a dishonorable discharge after a long career might raise eyebrows and perhaps even constitute a blacklisting in some quarters (whoa, it's like the Army fired him! What'd he have to do to make that happen?!), but I personally know a guy who was once young and stupid and wasn't in the Army too terribly long, receiving a dishonorable discharge. He was worried about revealing it (his fears upon finding a new job were the reason I learned of the DD), but has had no trouble with which I am aware. But again, he wasn't in long.

Neither, really, has Beauchamp. And again, given that his whole thing was to be a writer . . . I mean, do you really think he needed to be 'bonded' to write articles for lefty mags? I think not.
Ahh yes anecdotal evidence. And I already said that there are people that will take you my obtuse friend but that you couldn't expect to go far nor would you expect to garner much respect either.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:57 pm

watchdog wrote:
(Because, y'know, we're winning over there.)
2046 wrote:We are.
AHAHAHAHA....oh your serious. 2004 called, it wants your delusions back.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:10 am

Pajamas Media is developed from some early news blogs, yes. It is a media outlet with paid correspondents and reporters. Just because they don't have transmission towers or printing presses doesn't nullify their journalism.

It's not like blogging is disreputable on its face compared to some ultimateness of TV/newspaper media . . . or have you forgotten Rathergate so soon, and other such examples?
Cpl Kendall wrote:Ahh yes anecdotal evidence
A known example. I only needed one. Besides, what did we ever figure out for sure about John Kerry's discharge?
I already said that there are people that will take you
Very good.
you couldn't expect to go far nor would you expect to garner much respect either.
And again, I'm saying it depends on the employers.

watchdog
Jedi Knight
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Not at home

Post by watchdog » Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:29 am


watchdog
Jedi Knight
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Not at home

Post by watchdog » Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:47 am

Wait a minute, how did we go from disscusing SDN to Conservative blogs? Did I miss something here?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:34 pm

Nobody's perfect, though DailyKos naturally attempts to paint a rosier picture for themselves than what actually occurred. The Jamil Hussein thing, for instance, has been demonstrated to have included false information, though the presumption of Hussein's non-existence . . . while not entirely invalid in principle given past press scandals . . . was a thought too far. The fact that neither the AP nor anyone else in military or Iraqi circles could produce evidence of his very existence for weeks after the question came up contributed to that.

But unlike as would occur with certain MSM and lefty types, the concept was retracted and apologies given when the fellow was finally revealed.

Post Reply