The New Yorker: Getting bin Laden

Story a fraud?

http://www.registan.net/index.php/2011/08/04/the-schmidle-muddle-of-the-osama-bin-laden-take-down/?utm_source=wordtwit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wordtwit

 

Reminds me of one of my favorite threads here of all time:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/58657/

 

Thanks for the great (not to mention clear) insight. The fact that no one was seriously hurt in the crash is a pretty indicative piece of evidence in is own right.

I can see how they wouldn't want to admit to just banging into a wall after the painstaking efforts it took to get the helicopter into that position to begin with.

Thanks again. You and your comrades stay safe.

 

Totally awesome post and spot on.

 

Creates an interesting tension between the legendary rigor of NYer fact-checking and a too-good-to-be-true story made from leaked materials.

 

Interesting - story now looking a tad suspect.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/team_bragging_7Eoqyzv05XYLBALWm7ohoK

 

Oh, horseshit. You think that macho bunch in the Bush White House didn't want to get Bin Laden? Get real.

 

So the only remaining excuse for not having done so is incompetence? OK.

 

No. I'm sure they worked their asses off in the CIA, military, etc. Didn't happen. But President Obama made it a point to mention that the groundwork laid by the previous administration helped him nail the bastard.
But don't think for a second the Bushies wouldn't have wanted that pelt.

 

I remember that story very well and the thread. I would say it's a bit different since the main subject of that story was dead. An equivalent would have been if the New Yorker story told the tale from Bin Laden's perspective.

 

I read about the Costco stuff a few months ago. There was an unusually large contingent of senior staff and advisers for a Sunday. They canceled all meetings and essentially went dark to minimize any impression that something was going on. That included not letting the kitchen know that a bunch of people needed feeding.

 

Sort of related, it's interesting how times have changed. Would In Cold Blood be possible today? If anyone has other stories about the fact-checking of it, I'd really be interested in reading them. I'm guessing back in the '60s the New Yorker fact-checkers were already legendary. A quick search just found this post.

http://hqinfo.blogspot.com/2006/07/truman-capote-truth-and-lies.html

Or Michael Herr's reporting for Esquire. I can only imagine the outcry today if a writer for a major magazine admitted to creating composite characters, especially of, say, a general. Yet they helped him to create one of the great nonfiction books ever. I'd certainly argue the journalistic "sin" was worthwhile. Yet if someone did it today I'd think it was a fireable offense.