Here’s an example of the kind of thing that Langner says Gross did to sex up the article:

For example, Gross, who may be unfamiliar with the dress code for German consultants, began to show a bizarre interest for selected fashion items. He wants to hold my wrist watch, inspects it thoroughly and asks if it is a famous brand or particularly expensive. It is not. Then he grabs my tie (literally) and turns it around to see the brand label. It’s a no-name product, again. Next he inquires about my shirt. Again, a no-name product. (I’m happy that he didn’t want me to take it off to inspect the brand label.) I tell Gross that I don’t buy fashion by designer name. However next he draws the grand price. It happens that my shoes are from a well-known Italian designer. He follows his hot trace and asks which shoes I wore the day before, the ones with that particular structure, and asks about the material. I say, let me think… I believe it were the ostrich shoes. I see Gross’ face taking on a weird look as if I had said something obscene or if he had just experienced sudden intestinal problems, but don’t give it any significance. In his article, this bizarre episode reads: “My preference is for Dolce & Gabbana shoes,” he says. “Did you notice, yesterday I wore ostrich?”, turning reality completely around.

Gawker also notes that a Gross article about Sarah Palin came under similar criticism. Gross ended up responding to those accusations and did correct one item. (I’ll update this post if he responds to Langer.)

Interestingly, Langner addresses Vanity Fair’s fact checking process, and why he thinks it’s flawed:

Now Vanity Fair does have some approach to quality control which they call “fact checking”. A “fact checker” contacts the sources to verify that all information is correct. Funny enough, the “fact checker” is not interested in checking the most blatant nonsense, but in fine-tuning information that supports the writer’s bias. Certainly their “fact checker” did not ask: Ralph, is it true that you write your blog to attract blonde Californian chicks? He will have known that my answer would have been “are you out of your mind?” Instead, the “fact checker” explores some background on a commercial computer program I had written as an undergraduate. Gross was very interested in this program. The “fact checker” asks if it is true that this program didn’t sell. No, it’s not, actually it was the all-time best selling software application in its niche. Reading this, Gross is no longer interested in this stuff and drops the subject …

I read the article in question when it came out and recall that Langner was painted as an amusing character. Something of a hacker dandy. In fact, that’s exactly what Gross wrote:

In a profession whose members have a reputation for being unable to wear matching socks, Langner is a bona fide dandy.

Langner says that’s simply not true, and that the fact checking process didn’t give him an opportunity to shoot down those characterizations.

He’s correct that magazine fact checkers do not focus on tone or characterizations. They would simply want to know if Langner did in fact wear Dolce & Gabanna and if his shoes were made of ostrich. They wouldn’t ask about how these things came up in conversation, or the tone with which Langner talked about his wardrobe. A checker also isn’t going to read back full quotes or entire sentences to sources, because that ends up with people trying to rewrite an article.

So, yes, the fact checking process is not perfect. All of the facts in a given article could be correct, but the way in which they are organized to paint a picture is a very subjective thing.

Of course, Langner’s accusations against Gross go beyond the above point. Let’s see if Gross responds, as he did the previous time an issue like this cropped up.

A writer for Vanity Fair has acknowledged a case of mistaken identity in an unflattering article about Sarah Palin in the magazine's October issue.

Reporter Michael Joseph Gross describes Palin's youngest son, Trig, being pushed in a stroller by his older sister, Piper, before a rally in May in the Kansas City suburb of Independence.

"When the girl, Piper Palin, turns around, she sees her parents thronged by admirers, and the crowd rolling toward her and the baby, her brother Trig, born with Down syndrome in 2008," according to the article. "Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, bend down and give a moment to the children; a woman, perhaps a nanny, whisks the boy away; and Todd hands Sarah her speech and walks her
to the stage."

Later, Gross describes Piper joining her mother on the stage to "allow Palin to make a public display of maternal affection."

The problem, which was first reported by the website Politico, was that the boy the reporter described was another child with Down syndrome.

The mother of that child, conservative activist Gina Loudon, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she told Gross during the rally that the child in the stroller was her son, not Palin's. She said she tried to make it clear because the two children look a lot alike.

"I told him that. And he ignored it," Loudon said. "It's not even like he didn't fact check – he just ignored facts."

Gross said in a written statement sent to The Associated Press that he was mistaken.

"Trig was with his mother the next day in Wichita (Kan.), but the child in Independence was someone else, and I regret the error," he said …

The Vanity Fair story reported that, Josh Kilmer-Purcell, a friend of Frey’s, told the magazine that Frey was sent a copy of The Smoking Gun’s 13,000-word report on the discrepencies in Frey’s memoir, “A Million Little Pieces,” in advance of its publication on the Smoking Gun’s Web site. The Vanity Fair story says that Frey showed the report to Kilmer-Purcell. In an interview with msnbc.com, Kilmer-Purcell confirmed that he told Vanity Fair about the meeting between himself and Frey, and said the magazine’s depiction of the incident was accurate.

Smoking Gun editor Bill Bastrone told msnbc.com no one from the site gave Frey a copy of its report in advance; he said he did have a brief conversation with Frey before the piece was published to apprise him of TSG’s findings.

Vanity Fair magazine stands by its story and said that its Frey piece was “rigorously fact-checked” before publication.

The msnbc.com story also discussed Frey’s new novel, “Bright Shiny Morning.” Gossip blogger Mario Lavandeira, who is known as Perez Hilton, told msnbc.com that he spoke with Frey about his book and was happy to be the inspiration for the novel’s gossip columnist character. An excerpt from the novel, available on Amazon.com, outlines a history for the character that is similar to that of Lavandeira’s real life. Link