In its July 27, 1971 issue, William F. Buckley's National Review published what its cover billed as "The Secret Papers They Didn’t Publish." Inside, the magazine offered 14 pages of supposedly "top-secret memoranda" regarding the Vietnam War, dating back to 1963. From all appearances the documents were as newsworthy as the Pentagon Papers, published a month earlier, and many major news outlets treated them accordingly.
They'd soon regret it.
A day after the news became public, Buckley called a press conference to confess that it was all a hoax, that the papers had been concocted in the magazine's offices, and that he never expected them to be taken so seriously.
Buckley said a purpose of the hoax had been to demonstrate that "forged documents would be widely accepted as genuine, provided their content was inherently plausible." He also used the occasion to attack the New York Times, which had been first to publish the leaked Pentagon Papers and fought for its right to do so in the Supreme Court. The Times, Buckley said, "has instructed us that it is permissible to traffic in stolen documents" but not on "whether it is permissible to traffic in forged documents."
Time magazine, for one, wasn't buying it. "None of these remarks furnished any sensible explanation of what Buckley was trying to prove," it wrote. "The National Review, with a 111,425 circulation and chronically losing money, has long been useful as a generally urbane and articulate exponent of conservative views, a field in which it has all too little competition. But its reputation will hardly be enhanced by last week's strange exercise, which in the end looked like little more than an elaborate schoolboy prank."
For his part, Buckley was willing to concede one point: "We admit we proceeded in something of an ethical vacuum."