The New Republic Can’t Confirm Weekly Standard Report Of Beauchamp Recant
This one is surely now to stack up as a case for the nation’s journalism schools.
We ran this extensive post earlier about a report in The Weekly Standard that Scott Thomas Beauchamp had recanted his controversial articles written about the U.S. military in Iraq under a pen name. If you re-read it, you’ll note that we added our own journalistic “hedges” since we were commenting on a report based on an anonymous source and not confirmed elsewhere.
But now The New Republic has essentially said it not only cannot confirm The Weekly Standard‘s “scoop,” but its sources are seemingly throwing cold water on it. Here’s TNR‘s statement:
A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:
We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.”
So will this boil down, in the end, to The Weekly Standard saying its anonymous sources say the stories are solid…and TNR saying its sources are solid
One thing: if TNR sticks by the story and says its sources confirm it, anonymous, unnamed sources from The Weekly Standard will not be judged (in other than totally partisan circles) as having proven the allegations untrue. But The Standard talked about a signed, recanting confession. That’s a yardstick. True? Case closed. NOT true? Then that is a huge issue. If it’s false and was passed onto The Standard then it would represent a new low in political misdirection.
This may be something for the dreaded, cursed, denigrated mainstream media to sort out.
And us? We’ll refrain from any blow-by-blow posts on this until this is resolved. Remember that The Weekly Standard enjoys high-level Bush administration sources. Will their report prove to be factual, or inaccurate? Stay tuned..
NOTE: The headline on this post has been changed. Actually, TNR is saying it can’t confirm it. Their statement is worded in a way that they don’t flatly deny it. And — in this age when all of us citizens need to hire lawyers to interpret official statements — the words “no knowledge” is not a complete denial. It’s still possible that it’ll come out that a recant statement has been signed and then the issue for some will be whether it he was intimidated into signing it and, if so, how.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
5 Responses to “The New Republic Can’t Confirm Weekly Standard Report Of Beauchamp Recant”
Well, I have my beer, I’ve got Chips, too, I’m ready for the next round…
But The Standard talked about a signed, recanting confession. That’s a yardstick. True? Case closed. NOT true? Then that is a huge issue. If it’s false and was passed onto The Standard then it would represent a new low in political misdirection.
Why doesn’t TNR ask TWS’s Goldfarb if he can put them (TNR’s editors) in touch with his source who claims Beauchamp signed a recantation?
Why doesn’t TNR tell it’s readers that Maj. Lamb also said: “An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.”
Not Quite The Last Word On ScottScam…
TNR’s editorial process is badly flawed, and in running this series, they not only got more than they bargained for, but besmirched the US Army based on the fabrications of a soldier who was provided an unfettered outlet for his fictionalized account….
If we are concerned about “truth” here, and confirmation of “facts” about stories, then there is no hiding from the fact that Goldfarb, et al, are hoist by their own petard.
Their declarations of victory have been premature and uncorroborated.
Only Goldfarb and Bob Owens’ claims of email confirmation from coalition P.R. officers stand as “evidence.”
I do not believe that such confirmations of internal investigations of individual soldiers is standard military policy, and I must hold judgment in abeyance until something more definitive is offered — presuming Centcom to be 100% reliable and truthful. Even with that presumption, the jury is still out.
I would prefer to see the alleged “signed statement” before passing judgment. Clearly Goldfarb, Owens, and the other snarling, snarking attackers don’t. But thus far it is logically unwarranted — most especially given the EXTREMELY high bar they have set for TNR’s veracity in this matter.
And that’s a classicallty “moderate” and serious position.
But, since that NON-certitude is what Goldfarb, et al have been screaming about for three weeks now, surely we must reserve our journalistic scorn for this gutter form yellow journalism, that has already (prematurely) called for the firing of various TNR editors, etc. ; that has prematurely smeared the reputation of Private Beauchamp in a combat zone, placing him in — the most extreme case — peril of his very life. And that has attempted (through the casual invocation of another, unrelated credibility scandal that is a logically specious argument against TNR’s credibility)
This remains what you called it this morning, Mr. Gandelman: an attack by The WEEKLY STANDARD against THE NEW REPUBLIC.
At this point, TNR’s statement, if true, boomerangs the entire argument.
I will add that it is an ORCHESTRATED attack, and has morphed from the position that “Scott Thomas” is some creative fiction writer stateside (and not a REAL soldier, to well, OK, he’s a soldier, but he was making it ALL up.
The only substantiated facts thus far are that 1) Goldfarb and Company have been demonstrably wrong and never demonstrably RIGHT, and that, while questions might exist about TNR’s story, TNR has rechecked and twice claimed the story to be substantially and essentially correct in all its particulars. Saying it ain’t so don’t make it not so.
Either way, the jumping the gun, the counting of unhatched chickens, and crowing about unconfirmed rumors (one can’t call them reports) has been premature, mean-spirited and excessively unprofessional.
Moderation should demand something more than an equivocating “a plague on both their houses.” TNR’s credibility has not yet been destroyed, and the Pajamas Media/Malkin/Goldfarb coordinated attack has not yet proven credible, for all the shouting and braying.
While I must withhold judgment on TNR’s veracity, I think that the Goldfarb/Malkin axis has a whole lot of questions to answer on this matter. They should not be immune from tarring from the brush they have thus far wielded with such casual viciousness.
What’s interesting is that Beauchamp faces only minor disciplinary consequences. His cell phone and his laptop have been taken away from him. Huh. How does this compute with him allegedly falsifying all the facts in his stories and thus stayning the image of the army?
I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Beauchamp, as an ambitious wannabe author, took a lot of liberties with his stories, changing places and events for the sake of a more dramatic narrative. But there’s a core of truth in that his musings are based on real experience. Of course, the army’s viewpoint is that the falsifications technically make his reports a lie. Imho this is the best explanation for those differing accounts we heard.
But, who cares, as long as we don’t see get more informations about the investigations and the testimonies this is idle guesswork. And there are more urgent topics to talk about.
