Did we have a Jayson Blair on our hands--or, closer to home, another Stephen Glass, the fabulist who did so much to tarnish this magazine's reputation ten years ago? Or perhaps another Ruth Shalit, whose plagiarism at this magazine did somewhat less tarnishing 2 years earlier? Or could he be another Lee Siegel, whose 2007 sock puppeting at this magazine resulted another tarnishing, albeit only around 40 on the Glass Tarnish Quotient? One fact was clear: painful experience has taught us at The New Republic to be on the lookout for tarnishings...

Heh. Read the whole thing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:22 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Oh my, Franklin! You shouldn't let your post-its get found that easily! Descent bit of satire there...a bit rough, but more or less good

Posted by: Mark at December 06, 2007 12:03 AM (P8ylB)

2 LOLZ ! Unlike Foer's 14 page bag of mostly farts, I did read EVERY WORD of Lord Iowahawk's reversion of the Foer treatise. All 875 freakin' pages. Well done Mr. Burge!

Posted by: Justacanuck at December 06, 2007 12:25 AM (hgxwr)

3 Fact-checking is a process used by most magazines (but not most newspapers) to independently verify what's in their articles. Webster defines "Fact" as 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: 2. something known to exist or to have happened: 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. But when it comes right down to it, is "fact-checking" really all that simple? Comedy gold.

Posted by: capitano at December 06, 2007 08:26 AM (+NO33)

Hide Comments | Add Comment