In an update to my post on this matter from earlier today, according to Ace, Foer and The New Republic don’t seem to have always been so certain that “Scott Thomas” was actually a soldier.  Foer was originally quoted in the New York Times article above as saying he new “Thomas” was a soldier with “near certainty.” Meaning they weren’t sure, right?

Well apparently the Times took that quote from Foer out (and it was a quote, in quotation marks, not a paraphrase by the Times reporter) when The New Republic complained about it in an online posting.  But what’s interesting is that TNR isn’t complaining about Foer being misquoted.

So what’s going on here?  Seems to me like TNR was just now able to confirm, with 100% certainty, that “Scott Thomas” is a soldier as he’s claimed.  Which means that just previously, like around the time Foer was interviewed for the Times piece, they didn’t know for sure if he was a soldier.

Pretty irresponsible journalism, if you ask me, especially given the inflammatory nature of Thomas’ writings.  If you’re going to impugn the honor and integrity of our soldiers, you’d better be sure your source is accurate.