When I first started writing for National Review in 2015, Nick Frankovich was my editor. He always was kind and professional, offering advice on how I could develop my nascent writing style. Although we never met in person, he appeared to be cautious and reserved. I know he is a man of deep faith and very devoted to the magazine William F. Buckley, Jr. founded in 1955.
So it seemed way out of character for Frankovich to author an angry post about the Covington Catholic High School incident just as the details were emerging. His article—”The Covington Students Might As Well Have Just Spit on the Cross”—went online in the middle of the night on National Review’s portal for short posts by contributors. Frankovich harshly condemned the students, referred to their actions as evil and sadistic, and questioned their Christianity.
“They mock a serious, frail-looking older man and gloat in their momentary role as Roman soldiers to his Christ. Bullying is a worn-out word and doesn’t convey the full extent of the evil on display here,” the deputy online editor wrote. He included accusations that had not yet been confirmed.
On Sunday afternoon, as the media’s narrative fell apart and the reality of the situation came into view, National Review quietly removed Frankovich’s article from its website. Rich Lowry, the outlet’s editor, explained in a very brief post that he and Frankovich had been duped by a “hoax” and that Frankovich’s “strongly worded post” had been taken down. Lowry also deleted a few of his own tweets that inaccurately portrayed the incident.
That was it. Rather than acknowledge that the editor and deputy editor for a once reliable and thoughtful conservative magazine were complicit in mob-shaming teenage boys attending a pro-life rally, they quickly excused their behavior as nothing more than gullibility. There was no apology, save for this quasi mea culpa. There was no “calling out” other conservatives who also had participated in the viral assault on innocent young boys.
But the fact that editors for National Review also bought into the various lies escaped mention. This also included senior editor Jay Nordlinger, who deleted a January 19 tweet that read, “the images of those red-hat kids surrounding and mocking that old Indian are unbearable. Absolutely unbearable. An American disgrace.” Jonah Goldberg hand-waved away Frankovich’s vicious post as just “different people reaching different conclusions or having different opinions.”
So, what motivated a seemingly measured man like Frankovich to pen a midnight hit piece on teenagers? What compelled Lowry and Nordlinger to join the outrage mob, and Goldberg to defend their choice? Why do NeverTrump (or even SometimesTrump) “conservatives” like Lowry more often than not side with the Left’s mercenaries in the media who are hellbent on destroying this presidency and the people who support it? After all, these are the same folks who warn us on a daily basis that the president cannot be trusted, that he’s a dishonest purveyor of the truth, and that his cult-like followers have no ability to distinguish fact from fiction.
The Sole Arbiter Of What Is And What Is Not Proper And Decent American Conservatism issued an "apology." Of sorts.
For an overheated few minutes, the world (meaning the world of people engaged in producing and consuming nanosecond-by-nanosecond commentary on the Internet) was rapt with revulsion at the sight of a group of smirking high-school boys — Catholic-school students, some in red “Make America Great Again” caps — menacing an older Native American man beating a drum as part of a protest in Washington, where the students were visiting as part of the annual March for Life. The condemnations were vitriolic, including here at National Review.
A word on the Nick Frankovich Corner post. As longtime readers know, the Corner is our group blog that encourages real-time, unfiltered reactions by our individual writers (it was basically Twitter before the advent of Twitter). There is always a peril in that. Occasionally, we’ll get something hastily and spectacularly wrong. Nick was operating off the best version of events he had on Saturday night, and writing as a faithful Catholic and pro-lifer who has the highest expectations of his compatriots, not as a social-justice activist. As soon as better evidence emerged, we deleted the post.
In this business, all we can do is own up to mistakes when they happen. We apologize to our readers and especially to the Covington students, who didn’t need us piling on.
You didn't "pile on," The Editors. You defamed a bunch of high school kids. So don't publicly apologize for your professional mistakes or for what you got wrong (although you got everything wrong). Apologize directly to the people you libeled and to them alone because that's where the sin is. Only then will I believe that you're sincere.
As the First Baptist put it, "Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy of repentance."
What does all this mean? I'll get to that in a bit.
1 comment:
High-powered attorney Robert Barnes has given a whole lot of people 48 hours to retract and apologize. Lawsuits will be filed beginning next Monday, he says, against those who don't adequately apologize for what they said.
National Review needs to decide which side it's on. Straddling the fence, or trying to, in the current vicious battle isn't working.
Post a Comment