Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
www.exiledonline.com

eXiled Alert! We just launched the S.H.A.M.E. media transparency project to expose the shills and corporate lackeys who manipulate the public and perpetuate oligarchy power. Check it out. And contribute using PayPal or WePay

Looks like the source used by former camp guard Jeffrey Goldberg to try to smear Max Blumenthal’s investigative article is proving unreliable. Karen Greenberg has already completely changed her story from a clear-cut denial that she had ever said the words attributed to her… to telling a different reporter that Blumenthal got the “sense” wrong, but not the words.

First, let’s go back to what Karen Greenberg allegedly told Jeffrey Goldberg about the quotes attributed to her in Blumenthal’s story:

I never made such a statement. I’ve never seen any proof of this.”

It’s clear as day: Ms. Greenberg accuses Blumenthal of making up the words. In other words, she never said the words that Blumenthal attributed to her in his story. No question about it.

But then the same Karen Greenberg told a different story to Adam Sewrer of Mother Jones. Instead of accusing Blumenthal of making up quotes attributed to her, she now claims that Blumenthal’s crime was getting the “sense of the quote” wrong. In other words, she’s not sure what she’s not sure about.

Here is what Greenberg told Mother Jones:

“What I remembered saying to him was you ought to look at these allegations that others have made about Israeli training in interrogation techniques. I did not intend to assert these allegations as fact…the entire sense of the quote is inaccurate.”

So which one is it, Ms. Greenberg? First, she tells Jeffrey Goldberg that she “never made such a statement” and therefore Blumenthal flat-out lied. No two ways about it. Then Greenberg tells another reporter that Blumenthal’s mistake wasn’t that she “never made such a statement” but rather, that, like, you know, the sense of the quote was inaccurate–you dig, baby?

By changing her story like this, Karen Greenberg has thoroughly discredited herself. If you can’t even get your own story straight, what use are you to Jeffrey Goldberg as a tool to discredit Blumenthal’s article?

This looks like a classic case of a squeamish source who regretted giving the interview, tried to backpedal, but lacks the sort of experience in sleazy dissembling that a real pro, a Jeffrey Goldberg for example, has down like a motor function.

Sorry Jeffrey, back to the smear-drawingboard for you.

Update: Holy shit folks, you can’t make this up: Jeffrey Goldberg’s smear-monkey, blogger Adam Serwer, got into a sort of Twitter-discussion with The eXiled that he’s regretting now, and hiding in shame from.

(UPDATE NEW: Adam Sewrer just admitted on twitter that he published this anonymous, bizarre smear-attack on Max Blumenthal in 2008, under the name “dnA,” accusing Max of being a racist for not supporting Obama. Why does Mother Jones pay a smear-monkey creep like this, who smears fellow-leftists and uses Mother Jones to continue a bizarre personal campaign against Max Blumenthal?)

It turns out that Adam Sewrer has a quote-mashing problem. He can’t decide what Karen Greenberg actually told him, and his erratic behavior suggests he still doesn’t have a clue. At last count, Adam Serwer offered four different versions of the same quote by Karen Greenberg—each quote he insists is word-for-word reported directly, yet each of the four quotes posted or tweeted out is different. Not sure about you folks out there, but I’ve never conducted an interview according to quantum laws, in which one quote exists as four different quotes at the same time.

All of this came out in a brief Twitter exchange, part of which we are reposting here for your reading pleasure:

 

Would you like to know more? Read Max Blumenthal’s “How Israeli Occupation Forces, Bahraini Monarchy Guards Trained U.S. Police For Coordinated Crackdown On ‘Occupy’ Protests” and “Max Blumenthal Responds To Sleaze Campaign By Atlantic Monthly’s Ex-Detention Camp Guard Jeffrey Goldberg”.

 

 

Share/Bookmark

Read more:, Mark Ames, Why Does She/He/It Still Have a Job?

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline

9 Comments

Add your own

  • 1. John  |  December 7th, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    It always surprises me that people on the left read anything in The Atlantic with trust.

    While it is true that The Atlantic does have scruples and does have some intellectual honesty, it’s essentially right-wing.

    Harper’s and The Atlantic have more or less split the intellectual demographic between themselves. Harper’s (despite some embarrassing moments now and then–see their famous dissing of gays way back when) is essentially of the left. The Atlantic is of the right.

    It’s rather like the New York Times Book Review (rightist) vs. the New York Review of Books (leftist).

    I always assume The Atlantic has the interests of the rich and powerful close to its heart.

  • 2. bulfinch  |  December 7th, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    Ms Greenberg’s equivocating is unfortunate. I have a hard time believing that the information she conveyed to Mr Blumenthal was somehow replete with qualifiers which he then took the liberty of reducing to better fit his narrative. I’m equally incredulous that Mr. Blumenthal could be so remiss as to accidentally misquote a source in his reporting.

    I call it source-remorse. What’s more interesting to me is — why?

    Like they say in the movies: “someone got to her!”

  • 3. Toni M.  |  December 8th, 2011 at 2:20 am

    “Not sure about you folks out there, but I’ve never conducted an interview according to quantum laws, in which one quote exists as four different quotes at the same time.”

    You are always brilliant.

  • 4. gold red azure black  |  December 8th, 2011 at 4:11 am

    his name is fucking adam sewerr.

    where do you find these people

  • 5. Ivan Konev  |  December 8th, 2011 at 5:43 am

    “Oh Lord, have mercy on those who attempt to defy the mighty @Exiledonline on Twitter, because He shall smite them in smithereens and He shall drink their blood, and He shall eat their brains and He shall fuck their ass and He shall feast upon their cattle and He shall sleep with all their women and etc etc etc.”

    http://northernhelmets.blogspot.com/2011/10/continuing-with-barbarians.html

  • 6. Sly Cooder  |  December 8th, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Thank you, exiled, for refusing to let incompetent machines continue to dupe unchecked.

  • 7. somethingawful  |  December 8th, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Man why can’t people just leave Mr. Sewerr alone. Sure every time he quotes between Greenburg’s reported denials, he comes up with a different quote. Sure he can’t keep his story straight. You know he’s got a quote-mashing problem. I know he’s got a quote-mashing problem. His parents know he’s got a quote-mashing problem. Even his receding hairline knows he’s got a quote-mashing problem. One day he’ll too face the fact that he’s got a quote-mashing problem. And that he needs serious help for his own sake. But let him do it on his own time, okay? He’s just not used to be outed for a sleazy quote-masher that he is, m’kay?

    Different wording aside, what was Adam Serwer trying to say exactly? And is he a Camp Guard Goldberg’s Quote-Mashing Sidekick? And should Mother Jones not fire him? There is no way every writer for MoJo and all of Sewerer’s twitter friends are so stupid as to be unable to see his quote-mashing problem…his “story” reeks of quote-mashing dishonesty.

  • 8. Gatorade  |  December 9th, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    I wonder what happens during childhood to make so many people bootlickers of the rich. Tv commercials? comic books? Or is it just that a few bootlicking people are the people who get promoted and published to a wide audience?

  • 9. tubalcaine  |  December 11th, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    @8

    they’re successful ergo God favors them, and you want to agree with God don’t you? maybe if you agree with God hard enough he’ll make you successful too!

    also, anything beats siding with the poors


Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)

Required

Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed