When you are in a hole, stop digging!
Posted on 08/11/2007 4:33:15 AM PDT by BillCompton
For several weeks now, questions have been raised about Scott Beauchamp's Baghdad Diarist "Shock Troops." While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas, we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy. We at The New Republic take these concerns extremely seriously. This is why we have sought to re-report the story, in the process speaking with five soldiers in Beauchamp's company who substantiate the events described in Beauchamp's essay.
Indeed, we continue to investigate the anecdotes recounted in the Baghdad Diarist. Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army. Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp's article and has found it to be false, it has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What's more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants "to protect his privacy."
At the same time the military has stonewalled our efforts to get to the truth, it has leaked damaging information about Beauchamp to conservative bloggers. Earlier this week, The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb published a report, based on a single anonymous "military source close to the investigation," entitled "Beauchamp Recants," claiming that Beauchamp "signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only 'a smidgen of truth,' in the words of our source."
Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, "It's pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by." In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp--or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.
Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members. Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke. (You can read our findings here.)
Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation--and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp--and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.
Your star reporter was already been caught in a lie regarding the “woman with a melted face” and claiming it happened in Iraq.
Once you start lying, why would anyone believe that was the only lie?
Not only that, but as Charles Krauthamer points out, part of his story has been how war changed him into an uncaring dirtbag. This incidence was only one of several that reflects that change.
The problem is, this one supposedly happening in Kuwait, not Iraq, means it happened before he got to the war zone. Ergo, he was a dirtbag to begin with. The war didn't change anything.
Preparing the 12 gray pony tailed subscribers of the TRN . The way TRN will handle this is to write as confusingly as possible, and let it fade away.
Next story should be about what is living in those pony tails.
Fake - But accurate.
First laugh of the day!
Ever see the movie "About A Boy"?
At a Christmas gathering, there's a gray-ponytail dude there who is EXACTLY how I see most of these anti-WOT types.
Thanks for reviving that bad memory! ;)
But of course, YOU don't have anything like that, do you TNR?
Indeed, we continue to investigate the anecdotes recounted in the Baghdad Diarist. Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army.
Your efforts or your pathetic attempt at damage control?
You're busted, TNR. Deal with it.
Ya know they've been busted (and they know they've been busted) when they throw this characterization in. Pathetic.
When you are in a hole, stop digging!
Re-reporting the lack of a story.
He told more manifestly untrue stories on his blog, not published in TNR. If you are a fabulist in one medium, why believe that you’d be a sober observer of facts in another?
TNR will continue to float position statements out, only when they think they have to, during the rest of August. Lots of people are on vacation and paying little attention. By the time Labor Day rolls around this story will have fizzled out and TNR will consider themselves off the hook.
Last point, they will not lose readership. The raging nuts that read that rags output want to believe the Beauchamp garbage, so they do.
Give it up tou dirtbags.
Sorry, you dirtbags
The New Republic can be reached at (202) 508-4444
Truth means nothing to such people as these so called journalists.
I betcha’ that when they first ran the article TNR never thought they would ‘get caught with their hands in the cookie jar’. At this point, the best that they can hope for is that this whole episode will simply fade away.
I hope that some of the corporations who adevertise in that magazine might reconsider doing so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.