The New Republic

I think at the time you wrote your sneering piece, many commenters pointed out these "inaccuracies" - as they always do, whenever one of your pieces appear.  It's good that you have acknowledged these - there may well have been letters exchanged between lawyers to get you there - I just hope that you have learned something from this, the same thing that many of us have been saying for a long time: distortions, sneering and sarcasm are not proper journalistic techniques.  Keep to the facts, and you may well find that aside from a few ideologues, many will agree with your positions.  

- icarusr

August 4, 2008 at 10:19am

Well thank you for acknowledging the errors of your ways. I also agree that J Street does not speak for American Jews by and large, but I hope that this will make your remarks about political opponents more measured and less defamatory. You are capable of serious journalism, Kirchick -- I know you have it in you.

- rozenson

August 4, 2008 at 10:39am

Good to see a sincere apology when it's in order. We have our disagreements, but the willingness to do this speaks well of you.

- miceelf

August 4, 2008 at 10:49am

Hey why are you apologizing?  I mean who cares about the facts when you are attacking someone?

It's funny, for a very young guy who likes to bring up Stalinism to attack the (current non-stalinist, non-socialist, liberal) Left, you sure do act like a writer of agitprop. Luckily for you, the Weekly Standard, conservative talk show hosts, and Michelle Malkin have proven there is a market for that sort of thing, so I expect your career to take off any time. Keep up the good work.

- dabeffert

August 4, 2008 at 10:50am

too little, too late.

i would say that this entire fetid affair wasn't worth my time, but it was a real pleasure learning from Alterman that Kirchick is Peretz's assistant. It explains so much!

- bendreyfuss

August 4, 2008 at 11:00am

this is a first step, which considering this  lad's sleazy oeuvre and dishonest and disreputable short history at tnr, must be like the Mother of All Furballs caught in his restricted throat...

Yet, look at what he wrote. EVERYTHIING he insinuated in that post was WRONG. Hey, one can say, we all get it wrong sometime. Yes, but talk backers have been tellijng this guy for almost a YEAR now that he too often engages in willful misrepresentations and outright dishonest representations of the words of those who he sees as his peretzian inspired enemies. Now, the novice has been caught with his knickers down.

I say that tnr gives this clown one more chance - because, when repentant, everyone, even a rank amateur, deserves one more chance but another doozy like this one I would would expect foer to call chait and show this foul stripling the door out of the building. .

- thejauntyboulevardier

August 4, 2008 at 11:22am

Why let the facts interfere with the free flow of your opinions?  Keep making stuff up and you may get a gig on Comedy Central.

- twodox

August 4, 2008 at 11:25am

Please, please, take icarusr's advice to heart. Credit where it's due: This is an appropriate, and in the first paragraph, well-constructed blog post.

The second graf is problematic. The first graf says, "I got my facts wrong, I smeared a major organization and also several individuals, all because I'm too lazy to do simple reporting when I don't have an actual editor riding my ass as I do for print articles. Guess I was wrong!" Fine, whatever. But then the second graf tacks on a gratuitous, and therefore masturbatory, "But I'm still right, and they're still wrong, so although I'm saying I'm sorry, I'm really not, and nyah nyah nyah." Bad form.

If this is supposed to be a correction, correct the facts and stop there. If this is an apology, then say you're very sorry and stop there. Don't tell us that you still think the people you've smeared are dangerously wrong even though they don't actually support the policies you earlier accused them of supporting. There will be time to rebuild your case against these people in a future article. The point here should have been to correct the facts, explain your error, and express any regret you may feel. Anything that does not directly contribute to those ends, and especially anything that breaks the appropriate tone of authorial voice for such goals, just does not belong.

- rhubarbs

August 4, 2008 at 11:27am

Wow, I wonder how much pushing and pressing by which superiors it took to get this admission out. Basically, the entirety of assertions that Kirchik made in that post was simply false, and yet still it took x days and some initial protesting and petulance to get a plain admission of that. On the other hand, even that much I think is a first for Jamie, so maybe the glass is half full. OK, an eighth-full.

- jobeek2

August 4, 2008 at 11:45am

I agree that the last paragraph of this apology is bad form, almost like a child trying to chisle for the last word, which come to think of it, is exactly what it is.

Still, it is an apology, half-assed for sure but an apology nonetheless. And as someone who always believes in giving everyone, even an undeserving germ like kirchick,  one last chance to shape up, I say that this post was just enough to keep from shoving him onto the tumbril...for now that is...

- thejauntyboulevardier

August 4, 2008 at 11:57am

BTW: While my post above was both sarcastic and snarky, if Kirchik had said: "I made a mistake, XYZ was wrong. I'm sorry and I plan to be more careful." I would have have written something nice. Like, I continue to disagree with you, but I am glad that you have decided to improve yourself and your journalism. As it was this post reeked of an adult at TNR making him do this.

- dabeffert

August 4, 2008 at 12:06pm

I'd say give Kirchick credit if he came to this on his own; but I doubt he did.

On July 28, Alterman posted on the Huffington Post, calling Kirchick out on his bs. At the end he wrote "And by the way, TNR, I'd like a correction."

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../martys-mini-me_b_115466.html

I imagine someone higher than him at TNR--and lower than Peretz--agreed with Alterman and told Kirchick to post a correction: This is the end result of that conversation.

- adamvaught

August 4, 2008 at 12:27pm

icarusr is right.

- chrismealy

August 4, 2008 at 12:37pm

I agree with Adam here.  This correction feels like it was written with a (metaphorical) gun to the head, espeically after his first response to the blowback was a longer, even more sneering post.

- Crock1701

August 4, 2008 at 12:51pm

Crock you must mean this one:

blogs.tnr.com/.../guilt-by-association.aspx

I saw the orginal post but missed the second one. Wow. The iota of credit I was giving Kirchick in my mind for posting this half-apology is completely gone. I especially like how he calls Altermann's outrage at being misrepresented "faux-outrage." Kirchick can't even give his enemies credit for being actually outraged that someone is lying about them.

- dabeffert

August 4, 2008 at 1:13pm

To be fair to the editors if Kirchick had to affirmatively withdraw every distortion he made, The Plank would start to get awfully spammed up with navel-gazing insincerity.  Much better to nip it in the bud and simply revoke his ability to post unedited brain-vomit.  Leave that to folks like me who hold forth on things they know nothing about for free!

- Typical

August 4, 2008 at 2:01pm

Typical, as usual, you get Comment of the Day ;-) ... but that's why he should have his own area, "The Sphincter" where he is allowed to spew poison and eat crow in equal measure.  And, by the way, I propose that this new Kirchick area, "The Sphincter", be open ONLY to non-subscribers: those who pay should not have to deal with his crap ...

The sad thing is, the kid knows how to write and do journalism.  His article on lobbyists in the latest print version of TNR was balanced, well-written and, from what I could see, well researched.  He just needs a good spank- I mean, good editor.

- icarusr

August 4, 2008 at 2:12pm

Eric Alterman responds:

-- I appreciate the correction but do not accept the apology, as I dispute the notion that Kirchick claims to "now know" that his statements were false. He knew it when he wrote them here, as there was never any evidence whatever to support his allegations. ...

-- (The assumption here is that because Kirchick is Marty Peretz's personal assistant, and is representing Peretz's interest in attacking those writers and critics of TNR to whom Peretz lacks the courage to respond himself, the young man's employment status, alas, is untouchable.)  ...

-- For the record, there were no lawyer letters from me nor, I feel certain, from Matt or Ezra. We relied on the editors of TNR to deal with the issue, however belatedly, on their honor. ...

mediamatters.org/.../200808040003

- ndmackenzie

August 4, 2008 at 2:29pm

I just read Alterman's response as per ndmackenzie's link above. It makes the situation quite a bit clearer.

Without agreeing with Alterman's final point--that Jamie gets away with murder because he is Marty P's assistant--Jamie has been allowed to flame the liberals who he perceives as enemies with knowing lies and intentional distortions. He has undermined the credibility of TNR. One of the things that I like about the moderate liberal press, including TNR, is the pretty sincere desire to be truthful and honest, even in the most angry screeds against the right. As a regular browser of National Review, TownHall, etc., the right is much more interested in being ideologically "right" and politically "winning" with much less regard for objective truth. Jamie would be much more comfortable there on the right.

I am also quite serious about Jamie hurting the reputation and credibility of TNR. I have been a subscriber off and on for more than forty years. There have certainly been times that I disagreed with the editorial direction or with a particular writer. But I can not recall ever seeing the kind of antics that we see all too regularly from Jamie. He is single-handedly undermining the brand and the other writers here, several of whom I consider among the best in this political commentary business.  He makes it almost embarassing to say: I read it at TNR. Too many of my liberal Jewish and other friends now believe that TNR has become a Likud/Republican organ. Sad. Particularly as I have noticed how the perpetually grumpy Marty has warmed to the liberal centrist Obama.

- sabatia

August 4, 2008 at 6:18pm

Sabatia...

your modulated post says it well. As I mentioned last week - and aware of your 4 decades of tnr experience - over my 25 years of tnr, I have had to continually deal with the peretz factor, especially when talking about politics and magazines with my friends. And as I mentioned, I have always been able to plead capital considerations and felt reasonably okay with that response.

But this kirchick addition is the first time that I am really ashamed to say that I read tnr. His antics - I like that term - have really degraded the magazine, even more than Glass, Shalit, and the vitriolic Siegel, and I find his presence on the masthead inexplicable and embarrassing. Just last week, when one of my friends laughingly raised the pungent kirchick albatross, I felt like a whipped dog. What could I say? What can anyone say?

I am as serious as you are about the damage that this incompetent is wreaking upon tnr's already shaky reputation. I do not want to wish anyone to be unemployed and I am sure that this kirchick excrescence can find gainful employment at some blog or magazine that is a better match for his peculiar talents. But not at tnr. A few more of of this kirchick piles and I just have to wrap the magazine in brown paper or never take it out of the house...or really decide if I want to stay with a magazine that tolerates this lying, sneering, unprofessional juvenile delinquent.

- thejauntyboulevardier

August 4, 2008 at 7:01pm