October 15, 2007
On August 10, after assuring their readers that they had "not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches" (how can a detail be key, but not factual?) the editors asked the Army to allow them, "or any other media outlet, for that matter," to speak with Beauchamp. This statement is particularly galling in retrospect, as we now know that it is TNR -- not the Army -- that has gagged Beauchamp. On September 7 "the editors" asked their author to cancel interviews he had scheduled with the Washington Post and Newsweek. Given their "commitment to the truth," one wonders why they would make such a request. But do they deny that they did?TNR editor Franklin Foer and executive editor Peter Scoblic seem to think that they can keep up this charade indefinitely, but it is only the indifference of the MSM that has let them get away with it for this long. "The editors" closed their August 10 update by saying that they "refused to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves" -- virtually the only honest statement we've ever gotten from TNR on this matter. But it should not be the last. At some point they'll have to say something on the subject, only then the questions won't be about Beauchamp. They will be about "the editors."
Johnson is keying in on what has emerged as the real story involving The New Republic in regards to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp stories.
We know, due to expert testimony from civilians in the region and in the United States, from veterans and soldiers, and a formal military investigation, that BeauchampÂ’s claims were without merit. For all practical intents and purposes, Scott BeauchampÂ’s role in this story is over.
The story of his editors at The New Republic, and why they have chosen to deceive both their critics and their readership, is the story now.
To borrow a paraphrase from another time, what did the editors of TNR know, and when did they know it? How will the Washington Post and Newsweek react to being "punk'd" by Franklin Foer? What do their advertisers think about the magazineÂ’s continued refusal to admit their editorial failures, and will they be disgusted enough to consider suspending or closing their accounts?
The days and weeks ahead promise to be interesting for the editors of The New Republic.
Update: Beauchamp's second story, "Dead of Night" was quickly pegged from the very beginning as evidence of the fact that The New Republic was not making any attempt at all to fact-check Beauchamp's stories, back even before we knew his name was Beauchamp.
In "Dead of Night" Beauchamp alleged the Iraqi Police must have committed a murder, because according to him, only Iraqi Police carry Glock pistols.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:23 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at October 15, 2007 05:58 PM (VNM5w)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 15, 2007 06:52 PM (Lgw9b)
Posted by: MTT at October 15, 2007 07:05 PM (1xjmZ)
Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan at October 15, 2007 08:17 PM (i1Bn0)
Posted by: BigDaddyT at October 15, 2007 08:42 PM (NaYIu)
Posted by: Anon at October 15, 2007 09:42 PM (otDb3)
Posted by: T.Ferg at October 15, 2007 11:33 PM (j64ME)
Posted by: Banjo at October 16, 2007 09:19 AM (1DQ52)
Posted by: kim at October 16, 2007 09:57 AM (5/X5o)
Posted by: virtue001 at October 16, 2007 10:09 AM (rJQZO)
Posted by: David Stern at October 16, 2007 10:15 AM (aRi2a)
54 queries taking 0.1156 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.