When Will The MSM Stop Embargoing TNR's Dirty Little Secret Of Firing The Whistleblower?

I already mentioned this, picking it up from Allah, but I think it needs to be pushed.

The MSM knows TNR fired a staffer for telling the truth about Beauchamp and the reasons for hiring this unqualified, inexperienced, Messiah-complexed frustrated fiction writer. They further know that what Gracie has reported is now confirmed by Franklin Foer.

And yet they are embargoing the fact that Gracie was fired.

This seems relevant, no?

If Kurtz and the MSM need confirmation for this, I suggest they call the New Republic's main line (202-508-4444, in case they don't know the number) and ask if a staffer was fired at 7:25AM or thereabouts yesterday morning with the simple statement "Your services are no longer required."

In fact, I'll ask Gracie to contact them directly to provide his name so they can ask specifically about him, if they contact me about it. I won't tell them Gracie's name myself, but I will ask Gracie if he would share his story with them.

At about 1:00 PM yesterday I got through to TNR on the first call with only two rings and had it confirmed, without any trouble, that "Gracie" had been fired.

This is not a difficult fact to confirm, guys. If I can do it, I'm pretty sure the Washington Goddamn Post has the resources to accomplish this feat.

Ask Franklin Foer why Gracie was fired. Was it because he was making unauthorized communications about unflattering internal matters to outsiders? Was it because he was, in TNR's opinion, undermining the organization? Adding to its difficulties during a crisis?

Really?

Well, if Scott Beauchamp is found to have invented slanders about his own company-mates, he might be facing several months at Leavenworth (though I doubt it; he'll be spared because it's a rule in this country that the left is permitted to violate the law if their conscience so dictates).

But if the investigation is inconclusive, he may still be dishonorably discharged.

Why?

Well, because he was making unauthorized communications about unflattering internal matters to outsiders. Because he was, in the military's opinion, undermining the organization. Adding to its difficulties during a crisis.

And I think should that happen MSM, the left, and Franklin Fuckin' Foer will scream mightily about the unfairness of firing a whisteblower -- even a whistleblower blowing false notes.

So let's have Franklin Foer's opinions on firing whistleblowers now, right up front, thank you very much.

It's relevant to the story. It reduces their ability to spin a story the way they want later. It hurts the cause of the left.

Which is why, of course, the MSM isn't interested.

Well, you're all on notice: You can confirm this easy-to-confirm fact with a five minute call. You have no excuse to not report this, apart from blatant partisan loyalty.

PS: The left is now claiming that Beauchamp's charges should be taken as true, because no one has yet authoritatively proven they're false. The standard seems to be "innocent until proven guilty."

Err... he's called the other hundred men in his company guilty of bad behavior, ranging from the disquieting to the disgusting to the flat-out dischargable.

Are his fellow soldiers not also afforded the presumption of innocence? Does this presumption now, explicitly, only apply to liberals?

Presuming Beauchamp is telling the truth implies, unavoidably, that the soldiers in his unit are guilty of the conduct he alleges. Why is the latter a fair presumption whereas the former is not?

Just because Beauchamp is now named where the soldiers he's maligning are not?

But of course one incident -- the child's skull as a beanie incident -- was witnessed and permitted, even encouraged, by many of the soldiers in Beauchamp's company, according to Beauchamp. None of them reported this conduct to their superiors, or, according againt to Beauchamp, even gave the soldier wearing a child's skull on his head a talking to.

That makes many of them guilty. Everyone in his company is stained by this allegation.

So please tell me why it is that Beauchamp alone in his company is to be afforded this special liberals-only presumption of innocence and integrity, whereas his fellow soldiers are to be presumed monsters.

posted by Ace at 04:48 PM

| Access Comments