Posted on 12/02/2007 9:36:35 AM PST by 3AngelaD
It took four months of dodging, ducking, bobbing, and weaving, but bloggers have finally pinned Franklin Foer and The New Republic to the mat. Yesterday afternoon, Foer's online edition of the magazine published a long, self-pitying, highly defensive screed about the Scott Beauchamp articles that accused American soldiers of casual atrocities in Iraq in which the Editor of The New Republic admitted the magazine would no longer stand behind or vouch for their accuracy:
"When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories."
It took Foer 12,000 words to admit to his own incompetence and the incompetence of his staff. He seems almost dazed by the onslaught that was hurled against him and he is genuinely at a loss as to how things worked out the way they did. He blames bloggers. He blames Beauchamp to some extent. He blames his staff. He blames the war. He blames the military. But to me, he appears incapable of the kind of introspection that would lay the finger of blame directly and solely where it belongs; on his own, perplexed and bewildered head.
Among the most egregious mistakes made in vetting Beauchamp's stories was the disclosure regarding the writer's wife and her role in "fact checking" his articles. Shockingly, Foer didn't recognize the conflict of interest at the time but promised such a thing would never happen again.
The military had already investigated Beauchamp's stories and found no evidence any of the incidents he described occurred. The New Republic insisted in carrying out is own "investigation" which seems to have been something of a smokescreen and delaying tactic - a hope that the entire incident would just go away. It didn't thanks to bloggers like Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee who still finds unanswered questions about the affair despite the length of Foer's apologia:
"As editor of The New Republic, Franklin Foer allowed Scott Thomas Beauchamp to publish three stories that were not competently fact-checked. At least one of those that was assigned to his wife to fact-check even though that was a clear conflict of interest. All three of those stories—not just”ShockTroops”— had significant “red flags” in them. These red flags range from the changing of a tire of a vehicle equipped with run-flat tires in “War Bonds,” to several obvious and easily verifiable untrue statements, including the claim of a discovery of a kind of ammunition that do not exist, and absurd evidence for allegations of murder “Dead of Night” that could have been (and were) debunked in less than 30 seconds with a simple Google search."
The bottom line is that the Scott Beauchamp debacle was a test of editorial character for The New Republic under Franklin Foer’s leadership. For over four months, the magazine has answered that challenge by hiding behind anonymous sources, making personal attacks against critics, asserting a a massive conspiracy against them, while covering up conflicting testimony and refusing to answer the hard questions. We probably haven't heard the last of this story. And the fallout from the affair may yet claim Foer's job at TNR. But once again, it demonstrates the enormous power of the blogosphere to hold the media accountable for what they print and say.
The bottom line is that the Scott Beauchamp debacle was a CELEBRATION OF the editorial character for The New Republic under Franklin Foer’s leadership
After the Stephan Glass fiasco, this may finish TNR. Their advertisers have to be very concerned. Their best chance may be to fire everyone and start over with a new name.
It’s THAT bad.
Mmmmmmmmmm. Yummy.
There was also the Ruth Shalit episode. TNR has a simply atrocious track record. But its advertisers have been forgiving in the past, on numerous occasions, so I see no reason to believe they care.
It would be only fair to serve Foer a steaming platter of CROW in return. ;)
“Among the most egregious mistakes made in vetting Beauchamp’s stories was the disclosure regarding the writer’s wife and her role in “fact checking” his articles.”
Well, my wife fact checks me all the time, and let me tell you, she’s pretty good at pointing out places where I don’t quite tell the truth.
read
You need to go back and read about this. It has nothing to do whatsoever with your marriage. It is unthinkable, in a reputable publication, that someone would 1) recommend a writer for publication, 2) be assigned to fact-check that same writer, 3) continue to be assigned to fact-check that same writer after marrying him and 4) continue to be assigned to fact-check that same writer AFTER THE “FACTS” HAVE BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION. Your marriage may be your only frame of reference, but has nothing to do with this situation unless you are a lying POS writer for The New Republic and your wife is your fact checker. I own a Yorkie with more judgment and common sense than TNR’s editor.
I read his “apology,” and it was as full of lies as the original story.
This business probably began with stupid, unprofessional carelessness, but it ended with deliberate stonewalling, false accusations against others, and lies.
In my opinion, this lying, self-excusing “apology” actually makes his professional crimes even worse than they were before, as he digs his hole deeper and deeper.
Yes, yes and yes. Shameless, posturing, dishonest toady with bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome and the judgment of a junior high school student.
Inferring that the conduct of your wife is morally equivalent to this turds wife is an insult to your wife.
You owe your wife. BIG TIME.
Balding-Eagle grins!
Foer, et.al, committed libel against the troops in Iraq.
Poor Foer doesn’t think its fair that liberal lies are exposed. As Michelle would say, boo freaking hoo.
Penalty is career death.
Which wine goes best with crow?
Please read my tagline. It applies.
Please read my tagline. I was a joke, for crying out loud.
So was I, for crying out loud!
Didin’t you see my grin!?
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.
