Burn One
Short-order cook Miniter at Pajamas serves up New Republic hash with a side of Beauchamp slaw and Foer fried. Turns out TNR isn’t the only one with an insider in the enemy camp. Only Miniter names his. Just go read it.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:48 am Comments (9) on Monday, August 20, 2007
9 Responses to “Burn One”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I did read it. I’d describe the menu more as TNR flambé….only using napalm, not booze.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Ach! Sssss! It burnssss ussss.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Quite a little grilling there. And an extremely interesting dissection of Beachamp, motivations and all.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Such a well established pattern in the industry of journalism.
The excuse for all manner of harm and hurt caused by greedy bastards pursuing more and bigger bylines is always and forever, the truth must be told! Unless it’s a truth that embarrasses themselves and then its all about squashing any hint of truth.
There are good folk in the industry, like Mr. Critt here, but for all intents and purposes, the business of journalism is a whores’ game. And, unfortunately, for every whore with a heart of gold in the industry, there are hoards of psychopathic ‘tards.
At least Walter Duranty was fronting for someone. Most of the media today just front.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I won’t go into whether one can manage to get “more and bigger bylines” by lies, plagiarism, fraud, etc. To my simple egoist mind, if one wants to be successful (which means one looks beyond the next five minutes), one behaves with honesty and integrity. There is ample evidence that lies, etc., are a pathway to failure, both personally and professionally. (So much for not going into the matter.)
(I was interested in what passes for thought over at HuffPo, though, in regard to McGee and his (admitted) homosexuality. This can be nothing but a smear used in lieu of an argument. To what purpose? Are they liberals? Haven’t the liberals said that using homosexuality as a smear is hate speech and evidence of homophobia?
But that isn’t all, of course, McGee is accused of being a homosexual conservative. If the opprobrium attaches the “conservative” aspect, why bother adding “homosexual”, since by their own lights, there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual?
There is nothing wrong with being conservative either, but assuming there were, just what kind of conservative is McGee supposed to be? If this is an argument, and not merely a hateful epithet spewed as a smear, shouldn’t one make a distinction between, say, a small-government conservative and a neo-conservative? Of course, the only way one could call this an argument is to name it for the fallacy it is: an argument from intimidation.
Enough of trying to make sense out of nonsense. I will only say (as a conclusion, not an argument) that Beauchamp is a manipulating jerk, who had a willingly gullible audience.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I noticed that somebody was dropping links in the comments there to the NYT article with the 82nd troopies. That’s pretty funny when you think about.
“Well this may be all lies but THIS makes the point better anyway!” heh..
August 20th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
TNR needs to get its head out of the bunker and fess up. This is getting embarrasing.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:12 am
That was an interesting read. Elspeth Reeve, TNR’s answer to CBS’ Mary Mapes
August 21st, 2007 at 11:11 am
As for the attempt to smear McGee, it reminded me of “The Left’s” yaddida yaddida about the (apparently somewhat reprehensible) Mark Foley.
Yes, “homosexual” can become an epithet when the politically correct are floundering around in search of an epithet. Apparently, they don’t even grok this gaping hole, uh, contradiction, in their own “value system”.
As for the editor of TNR, Foer, his politics and agenda can compromise any remaining integrity of his publication.
Which was reminiscent of The Lancet editor (Richard Horton) publishing all that “johns hopkins” nonsense about the hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqi deaths a few years back. Which was based on flimsy speculative statistics as opposed to anything resembling fact.