XENOPHONZ opened this issue on Mar 04, 2008 · 57 posts
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 06 March 2008 at 4:29 PM
Like I said -- the only caveat that I'd add in the case of this writer is that it appears that she obtained help from other people in fabricating her story. She wasn't the only one who lied about it. Now if your (non)Vietnam-vet buddy had brought in 6 other people who had all gone along with his tall tale and said "Sure! We all served together with him in 'Nam!" -- and then it turned out later that their story in confirmation of his story was a lie in itself: then I'd call their involvement in his lie an evidence of deliberate planning rather than evidence of a derived fantasy. Because he would have needed to somehow talk those people into backing him up in a falsehood.
The publisher claims that she had several people back up her story -- including people who falsely identified themselves as her foster siblings. So either she paid her 'witnesses' to lie for her, or else those 'witnesses' went along for other reasons. But I doubt that any of it was done without all of them first talking the deception over among themselves in order to get their story straight.
As I mentioned earlier -- it's possible that she has mental / emotional issues of some kind which inspired her to do what she did -- but she also had outside help in doing it. It wasn't just her alone.
And once again: the greater focus needs to be not on the woman who told a gigantic lie: the greater focus needs to be on a major news organization who swallowed her lie: hook, line, and sinker. The woman's motivations for doing what she did -- mental illness / con game / obsessive need for attention / radical social liberal agenda / whatever -- her personal motivations are of passing interest. The #1 primary interest in this entire story has to do with the motivations / actions of the New York Times. The woman's personal motives are purely ancillary to that analysis. The New York Times organization is far more culpable in this situation than is a faker with a tall tale to tell. I know that the publishers will attempt to portray themselves as put-upon victims in this -- but they ain't victims. Other than perhaps willing......no -- eager -- victims of their own biases.