Apparently the folks at National Review are getting a little taste of what it's like to be the subject of Tucker Carlson's fabulism. Following a series of "scoops" exposing the fact that liberals talk to each other over e-mail, like liberal policies, support liberal politicians, and shoehorned that into a large-scale conspiracy to elect Barack Obama president, Carlson's Daily Caller has "exposed" National Review for having written a positive editorial on the GOP's "Pledge to America" and then "conspiring" to forward it to the Republican leadership.
Not so fast. In addition to the two trusted sources who spoke on background to Ward, we have evidence that there was in fact coordination between National Review and Congressman Cantor’s office. We know that GOP leadership aides were aware of, and excited by, National Review’s editorial before it was published. We know that the piece was posted online just minutes prior to the start of the Wednesday evening caucus meeting, yet somehow aides were ready with copies to pass out to members. A coincidence? Please.
But there are also some things we don't know. Who at National Review (or its non-profit arm, the National Review Institute) spoke to members of the Republican leadership staff about the editorial, and when? What was the substance of those conversations? And are there other instances in which National Review has used its influence to help the Republican leadership placate its conservative base?
Like Matthew Yglesias, I'm unclear on where the wrongdoing occurred here. Is there any reason to believe National Review wouldn't have lauded "The Pledge" if the GOP leadership hadn't been willing to send it around? It's National Review. What does this say about NR's editorial pledge on the merits? Are its points well made? Are its arguments supported by empirical evidence? Engaging that is pointless when you can just accuse a rival of corruption. The point you're supposed to take away from Carlson's sensationalism is that Tucker Carlson is the last honest man in journalism.
As Yglesias writes, the folks at NR might be inclined to point to Carlson's shameless Breitbart-like milking of the Journolist non-scandal (yes, I was a member of Journolist) as evidence that Carlson likes to stretch the truth. The problem is that at the time, National Review writers praised Carlson's nonsense because it made the other side look bad. One example is this Jonah Goldberg op-ed, wherein the author reveals a vigorous poop-fetish through an extended metaphor involving a leaky diaper.
National Review Editor Rich Lowry is pushing back, but the point is, National Review might be in a better position to criticize Carlson if it weren't so willing to embrace his made-up nonsense when it serves their purposes. Ben Smith writes that what the Caller is doing is part of a long-established tradition of media institutions "taking shots at more established rivals," but the irony here is that the conservative media are so used to seeing each other as team players that NR probably wasn't expecting this. Andy McCarthy's response is to try to mend the tribal dispute:
Tucker is certainly right that “there is an important debate taking place over the direction of conservatism and the future of the Republican Party.” My personal experience with NR is that it has been a leader in that debate, encouraging and airing all sides of it. Tucker and the Daily Caller have an important seat at the table, too — as do the other flagships of the conservative press. We should stick to that serious debate, which implicates the future of our country. A sideshow involving publications squaring off against each other does no good. The real story is about the debate, not the publications.
Who says this man can't be a diplomat? Lowry's thinking of the integrity of his own publication. McCarthy is thinking about the bigger strategic picture -- the war against liberals -- which NR and the Caller are both supposed to be engaged in.
Aside from it's basic triviality, and the presence of similar lists on the right, this obvious team mentality is part of what made the whole "Journolist" hubbub so ridiculous.
