Earlier this week I posted an excerpt from an article in The New Republic which claimed to detail some pretty offensive behavior by our troops.  Since that article’s publication, a lot of questions have been raised about it’s veracity (see: The Weekly Standard) now TNR editor Franklin Foer is trying to get to the bottom of this.

At least that’s what he says:

“The Standard raises some important questions about the piece, and we’re investigating them,” New Republic Editor Franklin Foer said yesterday. “I’ve been in touch with several members of the author’s unit who corroborate the details under question. And the author has provided compelling responses himself.”

Standard Editor Bill Kristol remains unconvinced. “Right now, it looks as if the New Republic has been the victim—and the perpetrator—of a fraud,” he said. “Many vets and experts have raised questions devastating to ‘Thomas’ s’ credibility. Not a single individual has come forward to confirm any aspect of ‘Scott Thomas’s’ account. And who is ‘Scott Thomas’ anyway?”

Foer said he and another editor have met “Thomas,” whose identity the magazine is protecting to shield him against retaliation from his superiors. He said the soldier’s three columns were fact-checked, to the extent possible, before publication, and that he is now trying to resolve the critics’ objections “to my complete satisfaction.”

Maybe I’m missing something here, but shouldn’t the veracity of this highly inflammatory piece have been verified to the “complete satisfaction” of Mr. Foer before it was published and besmirched the honor and reputation of our troops?  Isn’t that called “good journalism”?

Further, why should this “Scott Thomas” get to hide behind anonymity and cast aspersions at the military and his (her?) fellow soldiers?  Is it not important to know the context of Thomas’ reporting?  To get some third-party verification for these claims?

The media is constantly demanding transparency in government.  What about transparency in reporting?

Foer and The New Republic (a publication that has had problems in the past with outlandish, inflammatory stories that turned out to be made up, see: Stephen Glass) shouldn’t be allowed to squirm away from this.  If you are going to write stories that impugn our service men and women, you had better be able to back those stories up with verifiable facts.