By Ezra
Though I sympathize with many of the sentiments in Kathy's blast against TNR, I feel compelled to say that I don't think this is right:
The obnoxious white boy entitlement complex probably also explains why TNR has harbored more than its share of frauds and fantasists. Because if you're as special as we are who needs fact-checkers, right?
I know a lot of the folks in the TNR fact-checking department, and I don't know of another Washington magazine where verification is taken half so seriously. There are various theories as to why TNR's gotten punk'd so many times -- including that they strive for Atlantic-style long-form narrative articles while on an American Prospect style budget -- but the place is littered with fact-checkers , and they do their best. The nature of this medium lends itself to fabulists, and only so much can actually be fact-checked. TNR has come in for more than their share of liars, but that seems more like bad luck and a soft spot for narrative work -- which can evade fact-checking, as it relies on personal integrity -- than an attitudinal issue. And given the mania over Beauchamp's article, I think it's important to point that out.
Indeed, it's a shame that so much attention is given to untrue narratives -- which, really, can only be protected against so much, and are published because readers love them -- and so little offered to untrue arguments. The Weekly Standard, which led the charge against Beauchamp, is a locus of bullshit, from flagrantly untrue portrayals of Iraq to discredited supply-siderism, but somehow, such quackery never attracts The New York Times' notice. We demand truth in our colorful tales but accept lies in our serious arguments about public policy. It's infuriating.