Comments on: TNR retracts Baghdad Diarist stories http://www.regrettheerror.com/2007/12/03/tnr-retracts-baghdad-diarist-stories/ Mistakes Happen Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:06:26 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Craig Silverman http://www.regrettheerror.com/2007/12/03/tnr-retracts-baghdad-diarist-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-342 Craig Silverman Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:49:26 +0000 http://www.regrettheerror.com/major-errors/tnr-retracts-baghdad-diarist-stories#comment-342 That's fair comment, Simon. But, in the end, they have to stand by the stories or they have to retract them. TNR can't come down somewhere in the middle. That's the problem with the Foer piece -- it lacks a measure of blunt clarity. I read it as a hesitant attempt at retraction aimed at not really using the word retraction. I think that's one of the things that bothers me about it. That’s fair comment, Simon. But, in the end, they have to stand by the stories or they have to retract them. TNR can’t come down somewhere in the middle.

That’s the problem with the Foer piece — it lacks a measure of blunt clarity. I read it as a hesitant attempt at retraction aimed at not really using the word retraction. I think that’s one of the things that bothers me about it.

]]> By: Rhonda Shearer http://www.regrettheerror.com/2007/12/03/tnr-retracts-baghdad-diarist-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-340 Rhonda Shearer Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:17:03 +0000 http://www.regrettheerror.com/major-errors/tnr-retracts-baghdad-diarist-stories#comment-340 Well said, Craig. Well said, Craig.

]]> By: Simon Owens http://www.regrettheerror.com/2007/12/03/tnr-retracts-baghdad-diarist-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-331 Simon Owens Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:40:36 +0000 http://www.regrettheerror.com/major-errors/tnr-retracts-baghdad-diarist-stories#comment-331 To me, the lede *wasn't* a retraction. While he admits that they can't fully stand behind the claims in the articles, he spends a good deal of the article offering corroborating evidence to the claims. To me, the point of the article is to say "Look, we really wanted to investigate this and come away with clear answers, the Army's decision to obfuscate our investigation made it impossible to do this. So here's what we found out." I just don't agree that it was a retraction. I can't help but sympathize with TNR, it seems that they made a very arduous attempt at getting to the bottom of the matter. To me, the lede *wasn’t* a retraction. While he admits that they can’t fully stand behind the claims in the articles, he spends a good deal of the article offering corroborating evidence to the claims. To me, the point of the article is to say “Look, we really wanted to investigate this and come away with clear answers, the Army’s decision to obfuscate our investigation made it impossible to do this. So here’s what we found out.”

I just don’t agree that it was a retraction. I can’t help but sympathize with TNR, it seems that they made a very arduous attempt at getting to the bottom of the matter.

]]>