After being taken to task for giving Jeffrey Goldberg better treatment than Jennifer Rubin, James Fallows responds to his critics. I don’t know all the twists and turns of this controversy, but Fallows links to Goldberg’s prime critic and addresses that critic’s concerns respectfully, without any of the sneering that usually accompanies a beltway media defense against a critique by lowly proles.
Reader Interactions
42Comments
Comments are closed.
arguingwithsignposts
We know he only responded because cole called him out. Such is the power of balloon juice.
Linda Featheringill
Readers should respond to inaccuracies in print, in service to truth if nothing else. Mistakes are made and should be point out and corrected.
This particular “mistake,” assuming that any attack is the work of Al-Qaeda or some other terrible Muslim, is quite dangerous and can lead to hostility directed at innocent people. This assumption might also help hide the identity of the real attacker and thus interfere with the safety and security of the community.
It would be to our benefit to call out those people who assume that all violence comes from Muslims.
SGEW
Something I haven’t seen mentioned in the whole “why did he call out Rubin and not Goldberg” brouhaha is the fact that Fallows has developed a tendency to specifically criticize the Washington Post ever since he returned from China (at the time of the “Mouthpiece Theater” disaster). Said Fallows at the time: “I’ve thought of the Post as my hometown paper for years and feel as if I’ve come back to see a family member looking suddenly very ill.” [Link]
So maybe part of it is not so much a lack of criticism of other contributors at the Atlantic so much as a long-standing (and perfectly justified, imo) beef with the WaPo.
Alwhite
But the problem with his defense – the paragraph expressing doubt about Al Queda was put in AFTER it became obvious they were not. He even went to the trouble of altering the cached version to hide his bullshit.
Fallows know this because he was given the evidence BEFORE he wrote this defense.
Samara Morgan
So how did you respond to your glibertarian rentboi morphing into Jen Rubin?
by directing more pageclicks to his Forbes whoremasters and banning when me when i pointed out this post?
Kain reacted just like Jen Rubin, and then walked it back even more clumsily than Goldberg.
And you pretended it never happened.
At least Fallows was honest enough to acknowledge it happened.
Glenn
Haven’t followed the ins and outs closely enough to understand whether Fallows’ explanation of his thought process makes any sense. And yes, he at least (finally) responded, which is a good thing. But he does one thing that is extremely annoying to me. His broader defense to the charge of an intra-magazine “hands off” policy is that the Atlantic posts diverse views. Well, yes. No one said otherwise. WaPo publishes diverse views too. But with respect to Rubin, Fallows did not merely post a differing view, he called her out specifically for criticism, and questioned her and WaPo’s integrity. He did not do the same for Goldberg and the Atlantic. That is the point, and his “defense” about the Atlantic having diverse views is rather insulting to the reader.
Ann B. Nonymous
Matoko, dear, just go to the boutique, name the thing EDKain, and relieve your tensions first whenever you feel the urge to comment.
I think you’ll find you’ll become a more relaxed human being; and if you still feel like commenting afterwards, I think other people will find what you write much more tolerable. (For one thing, you won’t drop as many science fiction references, always the hallmark of the sexually frustrated/professional virgin.)
TG Chicago
@mistermix: you might want to revisit the conclusion that Fallows responded “without…sneering”. His first sentence:
“I have put off doing this, since my observation of online disputes is that the only winners are people who stay out of them.”
That seems to be a bit of “O, such filthy bloggyness I must attend to! How simply dreadful!” Maybe it’s not “sneering” exactly, but there’s definitely some condescension.
Also, there’s the fact that his complaints about Jennifer Rubin’s post could just as easily be called an “online dispute”, yet he had no trouble entering that fray.
Finally, as a side note, I find it odd that he mentions that their blog system “logs changes” yet doesn’t offer proof from those logs to back up Goldberg’s story.
Samara Morgan
@Glenn
so when does mistermix respond?
i guess he responded by approvingly linking Kain’s latest glibertarian reacharound at Forbes, where Kain gets PAID for pageclicks.
@Ann
you should be glad to know that im no longer obsessed with EDK.
i have moved on to mistermix.
Villago Delenda Est
Goldberg remains bigoted, lying dogshit.
Fuck him.
cleek
meta meta meta
Chad N Freude
@TG Chicago:
It sounds to me like “I really don’t like doing this, I can’t “win” a blogfight, but I think the damage to my reputation would be greater if I didn’t do it.” Neither sneering nor condescending.
So criticism of an op-ed is the same as a blogfight. Got it.
Yes! And we demand to see the long-form logs!
If you’re going to criticized Fallows, do it on substantive points, not by sneering and condescension. “I find it odd” indeed.
ETA: Correction of miswording. Never let your irritation overcome your typing.
Brachiator
Goldberg and Rubin should both be fired, or at least suspended. There is no point, no value, in punditry or other commentary based on speculation before even any basic facts are known.
Fallows does not look good here, and can’t really make his blunder better by any explanatory wordplay.
Hbin
If we expect every journalist to completely police every article published at the publication they work at before they can even venture any criticism at all of any other journalist, I’m afraid we’ll never see any criticism at all. So we would rather no one call out Jennifer Rubin for her shit because no journalist can claim a clean hand with regards to his/her own publication? That’s just recipe for letting idiots and liars like Jennifer Rubin getting away with it.
And wouldn’t our time be better served calling out Jeffrey Goldberg for the idiocy that he spews day in day out, than savaging Fallows? It’s the way of the world, people are nicer to the people they know. The solution is for other journalist/blogger at other publication to savage Goldberg, not stopping Fallows from savaging Rubin because his hands are not clean enough.
Of course the result of all this will probably be that Fallows would be more hesitant to criticize any journalist the next time, because who knows what his stupid blogmate Goldberg might have said at one time. I guess some people would take that as a victory and a good thing.
arguingwithsignposts
I thought Rubin’s original comment was a blog post on the wapo site. Iirc, she’s in their low-rent district, i.e., bloggers, not op-ed hacks in the dead-tree ed.
Villago Delenda Est
I think the thing that pisses me off the most about this is that people like Rubin and Goldberg are given a platform, and they are intellectually dishonest in their use of it. They obviously have deep seated prejudices, and the thing is, they pass themselves off (just about everyone in the sewer that is the Village does this) as “objective”, when in fact, they are anything but. They don’t even preface their bigoted ravings about the eeevil brown muslim savages as bigoted ravings. They just proceed to blame them for anything that happens, because, as surely as the Deutsche Beobachter or Pravda would blame Jews or “Hooligans” for anything that besets the perfect social systems they represent.
These people should take note of how Julius Streicher was dealt with in the end.
nalbar
Fallows is a lier. The first version was not just ‘cached’, it was posted without any ‘we do not know what really happened’, and screen shots were taken. Then when it was found that the shooter was right wing, it was edited, with no ‘edit’ posted, giving readers the impression it had always been that way.
Then Goldberg lied about THAT.
Neither Fallows or Goldberg are journalists, because they do not see facts, they see and believe what they want to see, and nothing more.
.
Samara Morgan
@VDE
fixt
And Kain’s platform is still Balloon Juice, via mistermixs links to Kain’s paid gig at Forbes.
Hbin
And since Goldberg and McMegan spew idiocy every single day and with almost every single post, other bloggers (I’m thinking of TNC and Fallows mostly here) at the Atlantic lost their right to ever, ever criticize any other journalist ever unless they are willing to spend their day criticizing every idiocy spewed by Goldberg and McMegan first. I’m sure that’s not the job they signed up for.
Hbin
Goldberg’s blog is moving to Tablet magazine soon. I guess that’s a bit of relieve for TNC and Fallows, they don’t have to answer for his sins anymore. McMegan is still there, though, so TNC and Fallows better keep their mouth shut about any transgressions of other journalists if they don’t want to be call hypocrites or toadies.
dj spellchecka
here’s where fallows [who i had some respect for] speaking about goldberg [who i have no respect for] loses me: “I don’t like the general ‘he must be lying’ assumption.”
seems like common sense to always read jeff with the “he must be lying” assumption.
You Don't Say
Yes, Nalbar, all of James Fallows good journalism over the years, including his incredible piece exposing Rumsfield’s complete lack of post-war planning, has been erased because of this one incidence of personal failing.
Villago Delenda Est
Fallows has done some great work in the past, but his seemingly reflexive defense of the indefensible charlatan Goldberg does not burnish Fallows’ rep at all. Quite the opposite.
A “friend” who repeatedly damages your vocation with his actions should be discarded as a friend, unless he finds some other line of work. Of course, if your line of work has become propaganda for a decadent ruling class, then perhaps YOU should find a new line of work that does not involve lying down with mangy curs like Goldberg.
Hbin
So Ezra Klein must leave WaPo and let be only for the likes of Jennifer Rubin and Fred Hiatt, Paul Krugman must leave NYT and leave it to the likes of Brooks and Douthat, and so on and so forth.
hitchhiker
Shorter version of this thread: haters gonna hate.
For the record, I gave up on the Atlantic way back when it was promoting the war in Iraq. Couldn’t bear to help subsidize any publisher who would put that on its front page.
I’m raising my hand here in my kitchen to say that I have the misfortune to work for people I don’t admire. No, I actively despise them. They’re dishonest and stupid, just like the worst of the tea bag fools. And yet they give me a platform (and pay me) to produce work that I like to think helps a few people stay safer.
Is the hating on Fallows about where he works and who else works there? I wonder how many of us unilaterally refuse to take a paycheck from idiots, or to work alongside lying, self-serving morons like Goldberg.
Commenting at Ballon Juice since 1937
Jeffrey Goldberg is an idiot on Mossad’s payroll. Now we find out he’s incompetent too. Apparently when pposting an update, it is very difficult to type Update:
Hbin
Exactly! Isn’t it better that The Atlantic at least have Fallows and TNC? We want them to quit in the name of purity, and then what? So that The Atlantic can hire even more idiots like Goldberg and McMegan? Most of you might have given up on The Atlantic, but for the people who make and break policies, it still matters. So in the name of purity, you would prefer that the only voices heard by those people are the voices of McMegans and Goldbergs of the world? That’s a very defeatist attitude.
Plus it’s probably hard enough for TNC and Fallows working for a center-right publication as it is. If they spend their time criticizing their colleagues whose ideological predilection are closer to the boss, how long do you think they will last? But of course if all you are concerned about is purity, you’d probably welcome them being fired from the magazine.
Commenting at Ballon Juice since 1937
Fallows main beef seems to be with Instapundit et al who made some very offensive accusations. The Goldberg thing seems minor.
Villago Delenda Est
Has Ezra Klein come to the defense of Jennifer Rubin, who jumped to a conclusion, but at least, to my knowledge, didn’t edit in a sentence advocating caution at jumping to any conclusions after her conclusion was demonstrated to be utter bullshit? Has Krugman ever defended any of his NYT colleagues who have been caught, as Goldberg has just been, in such obvious “rectification” of a prior presentation? Fallows’ defense of the blatant liar and fabulist Goldberg has been going on for some time now. It does Fallows no credit at all to defend such a scurrilous fraud, who has been caught red handed in the lie.
Fallows should not bother defending the indefensible Goldberg. Say nothing about him. At all. Let the criticism of Goldberg stand without comment.
BombIranForChrist
I sent Fallows an email saying that even though I respected him, I still had a hard time swallowing that Goldberg’s technical difficulties somehow managed to only delete the word “Update” while successfully adding a paragraph that covered Goldberg’s ass.
Fallows responded with a little more detail, explaining that the Atlantic software is very frustrating to deal with and he seemed genuinely frustrated. He pointed out that he often disagrees with Goldberg and I got the sense from his tone that he was upset that people would just automatically assume that he is covering for “corporate interests”.
I am still a _little_ skeptical, but I dunno … I think Fallows is one of the good guys, and he seemed pretty upset.
BBA
As a Jew I find Goldberg infinitely frustrating. He makes a lot of posts decrying Likud’s policies as morally wrong and counterproductive to boot. My mother’s side of the family is somewhere to the right of Avigdor Lieberman and I like having someone with Goldberg’s impeccable (to their side) credentials explain to them just how fucked up the Israeli right has become.
He was also a leading voice exposing the “Ground Zero Mosque” panic as racist nonsense and continues to rail against the TSA, one of my pet issues.
And then he does something indefensible like this and it’s all for nothing.
Midnight Marauder
I don’t really think the issue is that people want someone like Fallows to quit working at The Atlantic. Rather, the issue is that it was long ago established as fact that Goldberg is a propagandist, and yes, he frequently lies about everything. We know these things to be true.
So when someone like Fallows writes “I don’t like the general ‘he must be lying’ assumption.”, he’s either being extremely obtuse in regards to his colleague’s long-established, well-documented reputation as a liar and a bigot…or James Fallows is just a fucking moron. And I highly doubt James Fallows is a fucking moron.
Because we know Goldberg is liar. We know this.
So now, the most salient question becomes why is James Fallows enabling Jeffrey Goldberg’s propaganda? Because that is exactly what he has been doing.
And Ta-Nehisi Coates has been guilty of the same crime on far too many occasions as well.
Bruce S
“I think Fallows is one of the good guys”
And he tends to give people the benefit of the doubt in questions of “good faith.” Fallows is nothing if not a gentleman. I think his accepting Goldberg’s version – along with the obvious fact that he’s more than a bit of a tech-head who isn’t happy with the tools Atlantic gives him – is in keeping with his character and neither some knee-jerk covering of Atlantic’s ass nor a flaw.
Hbin
Because it’s human to have blind spots about people you’re close to? Because they don’t primarily write about the things that Goldberg write about, so might not be as confident as you about Goldberg’s bigotry, for example?
Should we all be like MC here and eviscerate mistermix for still linking to ED, even after his post doing the same thing Goldberg was doing about the attack on Norway? Is mistermix “enabling ED Kain’s propaganda” as well? I think you have a responsibility to the things that YOU write, you should not be expected to pay for your colleagues’ sin. It’s not school with a hall monitor, The Atlantic didn’t hire Fallows or TNC for that job.
Samara Morgan
@Hbin
you completely mistake my point.
mistermix is directing PAGECLICKS to Kain’s PAID gig at Forbes, while simultaneously sneering at Fallows who at least ACKNOWLEDGED what Goldberg and Rubin did was awful.
If mistermix wants to link EDK because Kain was his mancrush here when he got rolled by Erik’s turning liberal fake-athon, I Do Not Give A Shit.
But if he tries to ignore that Kain is a “neoliberal-liberaltarian” christian triumphalist and closet JAFI at his NON-PAYING blog to massage Erik’s page click count at Forbes…..im going to rub his nose in it.
AND when i tried to point out the extreme similarity between Kains views and Jennifer Runbins DougJ gave me a three-day timeout.
Samara Morgan
@Hbin
One more time.
EDK is NOT mistermixs colleague.
EDK left when he got the paid gig at Forbes.
I dont want mistermix to pay for EDK’s sin– i just want him to acknowledge it before he pimps his posts at Forbes for pageclicks….or perhaps it would have been wise to acknowledge it instead of pretending it never happened.
Samara Morgan
@BBA
well, that right there is the “Paradox of Libertarianism.”
or as i prefer to call it, Distributed Jesusland™.
Samara Morgan
@Hbin
boyhowdy are you a naif.
yes, because then it would be OBVIOUS.
Fallows and TNC prop their more obviously learning disabled “colleagues”, and give them cover. Its too high a price to pay for the occasional reacharound, IMHO.
i was banned at TNC’s for critting his homie Douthat.
you dumbasses slobber all over any libertarian that headfakes alignment with empiricism.
you are pathetic.
those guys will never betray their
whoremasterspaymasters.Samara Morgan
Actually im banned at all the Atlantic blogs for critting Douthat.
He is still their ideological colleague.
mere mortal
Fallows is engaging in the time honored dodge of answering a secondary, irrelevant question. See if you can catch it:
1. Fallows calls out stories blaming Muslims for the Oslo attacks, but declines to call out Goldberg for same.
2. Fallows defends, noting final Goldberg paragraph, which qualifies it as reserving judgment.
4. Reservation paragraph revealed to be added after it became clear Muslims not involved.
5. Fallows defends Goldberg from being a liar about failing to make clear when final paragraph added.
See the problem? The whole reason Fallows is getting flack is because he didn’t call out Goldberg with the rest. Once Fallows knew that the reservation paragraph was added later, it can no longer be used as a defense, and Fallows needs a new defense or needs to lump Goldberg with the rest. Whether Goldberg was entirely honest about the screw up is completely immaterial. Goldberg did and does deserve to be called out, and Fallows still declines to do so. Why?
burnspbesq
@nalbar:
Then why do you read them?
keatssycamore
BTW, Goldberg re-posted Fallows’ defense on Goldblog this morning.
“Heckuva Job, Jeffrey!” -James Fallows