Good post on some post hoc editing at the Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg. This blind spot does not reflect well on James Fallows.
Company Men
by John Cole| 75 Comments
This post is in: Our Failed Media Experiment
by John Cole| 75 Comments
This post is in: Our Failed Media Experiment
Good post on some post hoc editing at the Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg. This blind spot does not reflect well on James Fallows.
Comments are closed.
[…] Via John Cole, the latest journalistic sins of Jeffrey Goldberg: On Friday, just after the horrific attacks in Norway, Jeffrey Goldberg posted this two-paragraph screed, “Mumbai Comes to Norway,” in which he pinned the blame squarely and without equivocation upon Islamic terrorists: “Jihadists did this in Norway because they could.” Of course, he had no substantive evidence for the inflammatory assertion. Any rush to judgment is foolish. This was reprehensible. Some of his critics would also say it is characteristic of Goldberg’s work. […]
cleek
meta meta
General Stuck
Chuck Todd is a motormouth bootlicker. That is all, except I am stunned that “motormouth” is an actual word according to FF.
arguingwithsignposts
I am shocked! Shocked! that this happens at a publication that lists Megan McArdle as a “senior editor of business and economics”!
shortstop
No, it does not.
ETA: Reflect well on Fallows, I mean. Not arguing with arguingwithsignposts just above me.
Ahasuerus
We’ve commented on this behaviour before, specifically with respect to the authors of various New York Times opinion pieces. I believe the prevailing sentiment was that those authors considered it inappropriate to directly attack one’s own colleagues. In that light, Krugman’s oblique disparagement of Brooks and Friedman over the past week has been something of an anomaly; it’s probably a result of him reaching his own personal threshold of tolerance for idiocy. Fallows probably has a different threshold, but I get the sense that he’s close to having it exceeded.
Which is a long was of saying yes John, I agree with you, but this behaviour is not unexpected.
ETA: And yes, I had (mercifully) forgotten about Megan McArdle. Mr. Fallows must have a *very* high threshold.
Upper West
OK. So I start reading this — initially interesting that Atlantic co-bloggers selectively j’accuse. Then after a few paragraphs, I realized that this is “Smithneus writing a critique of Fallows’ and Coates’ failure to critique Goldberg, while vociferously critiquing Rubin.”
that should be a tag, like “David Brooks giving a seminar at the Aspen Institute.”
Morbo
The 11th commandment is alive and well at teh Atlantic.
jwb
efgoldman: As one of the FPers here says: every post by McMegan takes another chip out of the Atlantic’s credibility as a serious publication. The brand is not what it was, and I would read Fallows and TNC more if they published elsewhere.
Julia Grey
Very disappointed in Fallows, but I suppose we must acknowledge that this is business as usual, even for our supposed allies in the press. It must be hard to thread the needle sometimes. Keep the peace with that guy in your office who wields considerably more power with management than you do, or do the right thing? Life as it is lived.
As was pointed out in the referenced blog, journalists do hesitate to criticize their friends (or powerful colleagues) in print, and the Washington-beat press is like a giant High School.
I seem to remember a famous column by someone years ago, defending a fellow classmate’s political crimes by saying that he, the writer, often ran into the bad guy at the local Safeway and, gee, he seemed so nice. Seriously. (I think it was Friedman about Rumsfeld? Something like that.)
shortstop
Okay, look, if the sentiment/expectation at your own publication is that you will never publicly challenge or criticize your direct colleagues, then you don’t get to lambaste a writer at another publication for the identical sin that one of your colleagues just committed. Fallows did have the option of declining to go after Rubin.
You simply cannot have it both ways without doing your own credibility major damage.
Ash Can
@Upper West: I fail to see anything wrong with calling out double standards.
This isn’t enough to get Fallows on my shit list, but I agree that it reflects badly on him. Maybe he and the rest of the Atlantic writers are under strict orders to never criticize each other (perhaps to avoid having McArdle driven from her position by the rest of the writers there). Or maybe, as smintheus postulates, it’s just a matter of friends taking it much easier on each other. Regardless, though, it’s unfortunate.
Cat Lady
Maybe Fallows wants a pony.
MikeJ
If Fallows had just said that he never read the drivel Goldberg writes I might have believed him.
Strandedvandal
So Goldberg is a lying douchebag who wrote some seriously heinous crap, but let’s attack Fallows because he hasn’t chastised Goldberg enough for some people’s taste. Maybe he is just tired of having to scold this giant bag ‘o crap. Maybe he has better things to do than deal with a scold on the internet giving him shit over a worthless pantload co-worker?
NobodySpecial
Asshole buddies covering for one another, probably under orders from the bosses. Who here is shocked?
ira-NY
As Brad DeLong continually asks, “Why oh why can’t we have a better press?”
The press is failing to inform us. A republic can’t operate without the citizens being reasonably well informed.
Today I watched Chuck Todd report on the debt ceiling crisis. He, like the rest of the press, used phrases like “who will blink first,” “who swerves first in this game of chicken” and “will the Democrats and Obama cave.” He focused almost exclusively on who is up-who is down, political winners and losers and all the other Potomac fever BS spewed daily. I screamed at the TV, what about the substance of this? We get damn little of that.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
Oh, well, as long as we are talking about Atlantic bloggers, I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the numerous Juicebagger posts denouncing TNC as a ‘firebagger‘.
DMan
The Ta-Nehisi Coates thread is where I became aware of Goldberg’s unethical journalistic actions. The comments containing the damning evidence against Goldberg have since been taken down from there though.
lllphd
has anyone contacted TNC? seems his input on this would be as valuable as fallows, and certainly edifying to demonstrate the pattern.
i have always really liked fallows, and TNC as well, but any rag that keeps mcmegan on as econ ed really strains credibility.
Bob
Goldberg has been pretty influential in discussions on Iraqi WMDs and should have been excoriated on his defense of his pre-Iraq war writing.
Oddly, he got to interview Fidel Castro at some point and I’m wondering how he got access still.
Ugh. Megan. Ugh. I’ve seen Fallows make an oblique reference to her before, but generally he avoids it.
TNC has linked to her a couple times before, but I honestly think he hasn’t read enough years of her work to realize how dishonest she is. Also, he will remove comments disparaging his co-bloggers, so it makes me think that it’s policy from above.
Cat Lady
ira:
Why watch them? It’s pointless and just encourages them.
gex
The overriding theme of the decline of the American Empire is tribalism. Republican tribalism, Christian tribalism, Villager tribalism. Loyalty to the tribe supercedes loyalty to doing what’s right, following the rule of law, or loyalty to America.
MattF
It’s too bad– I generally like Fallows’ pieces, and his perch at the Atlantic gives visibility to some actually rational, evidence-based opinions.
arguingwithsignposts
@Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .:
I won’t comment on the gist of TNC’s column, but is this the first time the phrase “Hippy punching” has appeared in the pages of the Times? Will they need to link to the BJ Lexicon soon?
Chinn Romney
To paraphrase that great American Man of letters, Jerry Seinfeld, folks who read rags like The Atlantic deserve to be lied to. When I want hard news I click on the teevee. For instance, “Legal Correspondent” Star Jones, was guessing the other day where Casey Anthony might be hiding out. I bet the Atlantic didn’t even mention this breaking story.
david mizner
Good piece. What is “unbossed” — I don’t know it.
Mike P
I don’t think there’s any in-house “gag rule” for the Atlantic writers to not criticize each other’s work. While I wouldn’t call them knock down, drag out brawls, Coates and Sullivan had some very at-length back and forth exchanges over various topics before Sully decamped to the Daily Beast.
This is disappointing from Fallows, but here’s been at the Atlantic for a LONG time and I hope, if this situation is kept on the front burner, that he’ll address it.
One thing the Atlantic really needs to consider is having comments sections for ALL of their blogs. Fallows and Goldberg notbly do not, and sometimes having those will keep a writer from going too far down the rabbit hole (not always, but sometimes). I’d like to think Fallows, who is one of my journalistic idols, would be responsive to that kind of thing.
Brandon
Thanks to linking to Unbossed which led me to TinyRevolution. I have been lamenting the fact that I was having difficulty finding new blogs that I appreciate and these two, and TinyRevolution in particular seem to be right up my alley. I have a feeling that Memeorandum is killing the blogosphere. Unless of course the blogosphere was just a total circle jerk in the first place. Perhaps I have been naïve.
Stillwater
I think it’s entirely understandable that people jumped to conclusions about Norway, even tho it’s not defensible. If Goldberg would’ve just admitted he was hasty, or overly emotional, and apologize for reinforcing stereotypes, he would be golden here.
Instead, he creates a clusterfuck which ought to destroy (it won’t) his credibility (which should be almost non-existent at this point) because his ego prevents him from admitting he was wrong. This is just another example of his inherent dishonesty.
But I can’t get too upset about Fallows here: when your boss wink-winks, you nudge nudge.
Lit3Bolt
Professional journalists fail to hold professional standards to their own company. Also, lawyer chases ambulance, anesthesiologist abuses painkillers, cop falsifies report, soldier kills civilian, and dog bites man. News at 11.
Bob
Brandon
The blogosphere has been a circlejerk since the first year. Note the severe lack of new voices since 2003. A lot of is due to needing to monetize big blogs, so they ended up just being co-opted by bigger papers, etc. A lot of is just inertia.
As for comments improving a blog, Mike P, that seems to be a meme that goes around, but as near as I can tell, comments have not improved blogs no matter how much people like to wield lack of comments as a cudgel. Rather, they tend to reinforce existing viewpoints and foster groupthink depending on how they are moderated. (See McMegan, Althouse, etc.)
Citizen_X
@shortstop:
Baloney. It’s just that kind of “consistency” that’s robbed us of any sort of (necessary) criticism of the press. Because there is always going to be, intentionally or not, in-house pressure against criticizing your colleagues. So if you can’t criticize them, you can’t criticize anybody?
I’ll take that minor hypocrisy if it means we can have lively criticism back and forth across the media.
Jewish Steel
Hey, didn’t Chad n Freud request equal time for Jeffery Goldberg? Wow. This is a full service blog.
shortstop
You conveniently leave out that he’s only getting this feedback because he went after Rubin for the exact behavior in which Goldberg engaged. That was Fallows’ choice. If he doesn’t want to slag a coworker no matter how idiotic that colleague is, fine, I get that. But then he loses the right to criticize outside writers for the precise same crime while retaining full credibility.
burnspbesq
I think I’m with strandedvandal on this one.
This isn’t a Goldberg problem, or an Atlantic problem. It’s a systemic problem that arises out of the perceived need for speed. There isn’t a blog on earth of which I’m aware (including this one) that doesn’t have problems with premature eblogulation from time to time.
That said, Fallows’ response can reasonably be seen as deficient, but who appointed this idiot as village scold?
Jc
I saw this going up in real time. And then the clumsy edits after the fact.
I just thought “there’s JG being JG”.
He is NOT a one note pony, though at times his brain short circuits, and I do learn things.
But I hadn’t made the connection with fallows and rubin.
The original JG post, in my opinion was starker than the JR post.
So yes, by the standard Fallows criticized JR should have applied to JG.
I can’t get mad though.
No one is perfect, but yes it is a mistake.
Fallows is too right on most of the time, for my opinion to change because of this one mistake.
Jon O.
Yeah, this doesn’t surprise me terribly. Given that Fallows has been writing alongside Jeff Goldberg, Megan McArdle, and Clive Crook for years, I would imagine he’s got an understanding that he’s not to call them out for this sort of thing. Yes, it’s irresponsible, but between Fallows’ blind spot and TNC’s comment moderation, it sounds like it’s on the Atlantic. How much time does Krugman spend excoriating Tom Friedman and David Brooks? When it comes down to it, there are (way) more bad pundits than there are good (which explains a lot about the state of our political debate) and so this intra-outlet blindness is something I can’t spend much effort worrying about.
srv
This pales in comparison to Fallows fellating Goldberg’s “Why we need to bomb Iran” piece earlier this year.
NonyNony
@burnspbesq
Baloney. The Atlantic needs to decide if it’s an intelligent publication that is supposed to be taken seriously or if it’s the college-graduate moderate liberal version of a tabloid. If it’s the first then they need to reign in that “need for speed” and tell their bloggers to think before they post.
If its the second that’s fine – that’s what this place is most of the time – but then they shouldn’t pretend like they’re anything more than a better-funded version of Balloon Juice.
You don’t get it both ways. Just because you don’t flaunt half-naked chicks on your Page 3 that doesn’t mean you aren’t a sensationalist tabloid. And the Atlantic, despite a few commentators there, seems to want to be a sensationalist tabloid with the reputation for being a serious journal of opinion.
And it would seem that you agree since you’re explicitly comparing The Atlantic to Balloon Juice. Ask yourself – a decade ago would that comparison even have made any sense? An internet forum for bitching about politics and posting pictures of chubby cats is being (legitimately in my mind) compared to the internet presence of a magazine that was, at least at one time, a serious journal for liberal and center-left elites. Ponder that and wonder why folks might think that The Atlantic has seriously lost its way.
wrb
McMeagan actually made an interesting and, I thought, insightful post yesterday. I almost posted it in the Jane thread but the two of them making sense on the same day seemed such an ominous portent that I crawled under a bush and hid instead.
excerpt:
MBunge
Joe Scarborough got Kos banned from MSNBC for simply referencing Joe’s dead intern problem on Twitter. I think that says it all for the Village’s social mores on intra-Village criticism.
Mike
Jay Schiavone
Yeah, but come on. Palistineans. Statistically, outside of Arab countries, terrorist acts by Arabs are not very common. Thus, an ideologue must seize on every terrorist act to support preconceived notions about terrorism. Never let a crisis go to waste, as they say. And ease up on Fallows. As much as we chide him for supporting the rants of Goldberg or Megan McArdle, he would get it much worse from the right wing if he were to criticize (or not publish) those writers.
quaker in a basement
Me too, Goldberg. Your dog ate my homework too!
Zach
The obvious difference between Goldberg and Rubin’s posts are that Rubin immediately jumps to exploit the attacks to try to stop folks modestly cutting future defense budgets in the current budget talks. Goldberg says he hopes Norway doesn’t respond by bailing on Afghanistan, but that’s more directly related. Both are guilty of irresponsible speculation but only Rubin’s guilty of spinning that into propaganda. That said, the difference isn’t so large that Fallows, Coates, etc shouldn’t have mentioned it. I don’t follow Goldberg at all since he took to saying folks who disagree with him on debatable matters of fact are complicit in murder (apparently, lessons from the Iraq build-up didn’t last long) and hadn’t heard of this at all even though I read Fallows.
PeakVT
@wrb: Not such a great piece by McAddled. To wit:
Both sides do it? I don’t think so.
wrb
Agree re that part.
Citizen_X
@wrb:
Wow, yeah, that would have scared me, too. I would have been waiting for a blue whale to fall out of the sky or something.
But she’s absolutely right. And the problem is our ridiculous, unique-in-the-world debt-ceiling law. For over ninety years, it’s been a mere formality. Now, it’s revealed to be a self-destruct mechanism; one that any faction on the ship can seize if they’ve got a majority in one house. The law sabotages our (Constitutionally-mandated) budget process, and all the compromises that requires. It’s got to go.
Stillwater
@wrb: In a ‘world-turns-rightside-up’ crazy sorta way, she’s been making sense in a lot of posts during the debt crisis. She even had a good post on unemployment and how a priority of government right now ought to be job creation rather than deficit reduction.
Stillwater
@PeakVT: I’ve never defended McGarble on these virtual pages before (well, I did once: I said she’s not stupid. Hah!) but here I think she’s right: it’s the fact that the precedent of not politicizing debt ceiling issues has now been broken, which does increase the likelihood it may be politicized again.
Of course, the more likely scenario is that the GOPTPers do the exact same thing again, but without all the OMGs.
Mike P
@Bob:
As I said, not all blogs benefit from comment sections (and McMegan’s was one I specifically had in mind when it comes to NOT being improved by comments), but, Coates’ blog is definitely improved by having one. The author gets challenged, the discussions are lively, heated (but usually fair) and informed.
The argument against comment sections, I think, has more to do with the blogger in question, the topics covered and the publication they write for more than anything inherent to comment sections generally. For example, Coates. He’s writing about a wide-ranging set of topics in a fairly niche publication with a very educated readership. His comment section tends to reflect that. Ezra Klein, by contrast, probably had a readership that is more or less similar, but he writes for a major national paper and, so his comment section is less…curated, if you will, which leads to a lot of trolls and people just yelling and screaming about whose side is better or that “LIBS DO IT TOO! HYPOCRISY!” etc.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if Fallows had a moderated comments section, it would probably be a pretty good one, whereas Goldberg’s wouldn’t be (but that’s because the majority of Goldberg’s work is Israel/Middle East related and tha brings out the trolls on both sides like few other topics).
tomvox1
Yes, said this at the time:
https://balloon-juice.com/2011/07/23/the-answer-is-never/#comment-2686724
Guess Fallows’ moral outrage only applies to those not working for his current employer.
Derf
Past week unemployment claims below expectations and of course Captain Doom John Galt Cole has nothing to say. Only the bad news.
Stay gloomy John!
Jim
I wanted to read what all of you are saying but I have been mesmerized by a blonde in a bikini deep-throating a giant zucchini. Am I hallucinating or is that picture really there on the upper left?
The giant fetus ad nearby kind kills the mood, though. Actually, in some way the ads on this site are like a hidden rebus. The ads appear to be sending encoded messages that relate to each other: deep-throating blonde -> giant fetus -> walrus. I suspect al Qeada is involved.
Deborah
I sent an email to James Fallows: I am writing to ask why anyone should read the Atlantic, when its employs writers such as Jeffrey Goldberg who does not get his facts straight, writes unreadable nonsense to then cover up the heady combination of prejudice and incompetence that characterized his blog on Norway, only then to be essentially backed up by the Atlantic?
In other words, why shouldn’t readers read bloggers like the one below who actually conduct research before they write, such that when they sit down to write they know what they’re talking about?
I then linked the Flapola piece “No Shame at the Atlantic?”
It will be interesting to see if he even responds.
JohnR
Interesting post at ‘Unbossed’: substitute the name ‘McArdle’ for the name ‘Goldberg’, and the bulk of the post still makes a great deal of sense. I fear that he expects too much of the Atlantic. At one time it was a serious and thoughtful publication. Now it’s simply a vanity press publication with little more actual information value or editorial integrity than this week’s edition of News of The World in the UK. Coates writing for them is similar to anyone respectable writing for the Washington Post: it lowers my respect for, and estimation of them, while doing nothing to make the publication anything better than bird-cage liner.
And @Jim – you’ve finally noticed the blonde who ‘loves’ her veggies? She’s the only reason I’ve been checking in here several dozen times a day. Much nicer to look at than what’s-her-name who triggered a big uproar here a couple years back, too, although it’s a bit mean of Mr. Cole to do this to men of my age. Now I have to go and lie down again.
smintheus
Obviously Fallows’ ethics is a secondary issue. What’s most significant about the episode is that Goldberg tried to cover up how clownish his post was by expanding it without labeling the new stuff as an update. Later when his deception is exposed, he spouts nonsense. The Atlantic needs to decide whether that’s acceptable.
Fwiw John’s link is to the 2nd post. The 1st post focuses more on Goldberg’s post hoc deception and his ridiculous justification of it.
smintheus
Thanks for the link, John.
And Deborah, thanks for linking to Flapola. It’s a new site. I doubt you’ll get much of a response from Fallows. He first claimed that he didn’t need to criticize Goldberg because he’d included “caveats”, and when the “caveats” turned out to be post hoc CYA Fallows just moved on. Nothing to see at The Atlantic.
Nutella
@smintheus:
It’s interesting that Fallows follows orders from the Atlantic forbidding criticism of his fellow employees even when they publish bare-faced lies but the much more important issue is that Goldberg published bare-faced lies.
The first lie was his announcement of facts about the Norway terrorism that were completely imaginary. The second set of lies was his attempt to cover up the first one.
Just saw a tweet from Goldberg to Jay Rosen:
Still claiming he is an inadvertent liar. Right.
Ming
I was sad but prepared to be disappointed in Fallows, who I find one of the very best voices of reason and decency out there today — but when I read the piece, I felt it wasn’t fair to Fallows. It seems entirely plausible that Fallows only saw Goldberg’s piece after the “on the other hand, maybe it’s not the moooslims after all” part had been added on. And since it wasn’t labeled as such, Goldberg’s piece as a whole read as a not entirely uneven-handed discussion of the possible perpetrators behind the Norway attacks. When the fact that Goldberg had actually added that part that on afterward came to light, Fallows seems to have confronted Goldberg with that fact, and Goldberg has addressed it. Goldberg hasn’t exactly addressed it in a convincing way, but it seems a bit much to insist that Fallows call Goldberg out now for having written something intemperate that has Goldberg has since changed, where the change is now disclosed, and where Goldberg at least implicitly acknowledges that he *should* have flagged the change. I’m guessing Goldberg is at least a little red in the face here, and that Fallows will be more careful about whom he excoriates and whom he doesn’t in the future.
smintheus
@Nutella
If it was inadvertent, as I said in one of my posts, then Goldberg could prove that. All he has to do is get the tech people at The Atlantic to pull up the history of his updates to ‘Mumbai’.
Despite promising on Monday to look into the matter, he’s had nothing to say about it since.
smintheus
@Ming
I take your point. Fallows can probably justify to himself his decision not to rebuke Goldberg publicly by pretending that his surreptitious post hoc evasions suffice to get him off the hook.
But Fallows also called for an apology from the Washington Post for publishing Rubin’s screed. So why isn’t he saying The Atlantic needs to apologize?
smintheus
Plus Goldberg continues to pretend that he’s being accused of merely a “posting screw-up” and of merely “suspecting jihadists in Norway attack”. Not that he covered his tracks and that he flatly asserted Muslims were to blame.
https://twitter.com/#!/Goldberg3000/status/96640644449185792
Samara Morgan
And why isnt Balloon Juice calling on Kain and the LoOG to apologize?
Because Balloon Juice is the low rent Atlantic circle-jerk.
Kain’s backwalk was even clumsier than Goldbergs.
Bob
Is that you Motoko-chan?
jak
Doesn’t reflect well on Steve Clemons at The Atlantic either, who also jumped all over Rubin. At least he has a comment thread where his hypocrisy was pointed out though. Fallows doesn’t seem to have one.
Samara Morgan
yup Bob i r bak.
this “blind spot” does not “reflect well” on Ballon Juice.
i think Fallows was just being wise– i got banned for three days for pointing that out.
he might have got shitcanned.
:)
HyperIon
cleek: you got it in #1
Comrade Kevin
I wonder how long it will take before we hear that ED Kain has taken out a restraining order against a psychotic stalker.
Samara Morgan
Kevin the Retarded Cudlip
im not stalking Kain. i just object to Cole bitching about Goldberg and the Atlantic when he is just the same.
look how hard he is ignoring how Kain morphed into Jennifer Rubin on Breivik.
my hope is mistermix wont link the glibertarian rentboi here again.
but if he does……
SteveinSC
@Test https://balloon-juice.com/2011/07/28/company-men/#comment-2696173
SteveinSC
Joe from Lowell
James Fallows
Readers who were sure this was a corrupt, inside job that reflects poorly on the Atlantic might want to consider this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/al-qaeda-in-norway-reaction-toadyism-and-hypocrisy/242460/
smintheus
Readers might also want to consider this. It’s yet a further update slipped without much notice into his nearly week-old post by Jeffrey Goldberg himself:
Others had already pointed out it is gibberish, but apparently they don’t count.
The last three sentences are priceless. Goldberg declares that his critics are just out to get him “on ideological grounds”, though he offers no proof. I’m the critic who initially accused him of doctoring his post, and I’d like to know what he knows about my ideology and how it is at war with his own.
I have offered plenty of evidence, an electronic trail that calls his story into question. Goldberg is the one with access to The Atlantic’s logs. He could easily produce the “proof”, if those logs backed him up, to prove he’s telling the truth. He hasn’t even bothered.
“All I can say is that the screw-ups were inadvertent.” False, see my last paragraph. He can produce the evidence he claims would show that he marked the first expansion of his post as an “update”. Repeating his undocumented assertions proves nothing.
smintheus
A commenter noticed another revision by Goldberg to his “Mumbai” post that pretty well busts open his excuse. He inserted a clause in the middle of the first paragraph, also unmarked as a revision, that turned the whole original post into a hypothetical exercise. Goldberg has claimed it was just a question of the word “UPDATE” falling out before the long section he appended, but clearly that story doesn’t begin to explain this insertion.
http://flapola.blogspot.com/2011/08/jeffrey-goldberg-busted.html