The New Republic Tries to Come Clean on Beauchamp Scandal
After more than five months, New Republic editor Franklin Foer has finally responded to allegations of untruths in the Iraq War reporting of Scott Beauchamp in TNR. But as Bob Owens points out, it takes Foer thirteen pages before he even admits that Beauchamp could have lied.
It takes him fourteen pages, but Franklin Foer finally makes an admission regarding Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s posts in The New Republic.
…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.
Foer’s opus begins 13 pages earlier and attempts the impossible feat of justifying his editorial leadership at The New Republic from the lead up to the publication of Beauchamp’s work to the retraction above. Through it all, Franklin Foer has made it painfully apparent that he is incapable of admitting his own ethical and editorial shortcomings, and refuses to answer many of the key questions that still hang over The New Republic like a gallows.
Foer’s first admission is that Elspeth Reeve, Scott Beauchamp’s wife, was indeed assigned by Foer to be the fact-checker for “Shock Troops” – a clear conflict of interest that Foer finally admits over four months after the fact. It was apparently a breach severe enough to merit new fact-checking rules at The New Republic.
Foer tells us of an anonymous soldiers claim that the story of the burned woman is true, but offers no specific evidence of this. So far no one has provided a name to identify her or offered any identifiable details about her.
Tellingly, no soldiers in other units who have been through Camp Blurring in Kuwait report they have seen her. Indeed, they and civilian contractors have denied her existence. It seems that no one stating these stories are true will comment on the record, with the exception of one man that Foer was forced to admit the "Army had removed him from Iraq on mental health grounds."
Foer continues to ignore the words of Major Renee D. Russo, the Kuwait-based officer who told TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle that the burned woman story was an urban myth or legend in early August.
Foer also does not really respond to remarks by "the spokesman for the manufacturer of Bradley Fighting Vehicles"
Choosing his words carefully, Foer states that "Nothing in our conversations with them had dissuaded us of the plausibility of Beauchamp’s pieces." Foer, of course, said our conversations.
Foer still does not admit that TNR’s questions to Doug Coffey, spokesman of BAE Systems, the Bradley manufacturer, were vague to the point of uselessness. Foer also refuses to release the names of the other anonymous experts, including a forensic anthropologist, he claims support the story. It seems he does not want these experts to discuss the quality of the interviews they conducted.
Perhaps keeping in line with the "it wasn’t my fault" mindset driving his statement, Foer attacks many of those who required proof of Beauchamp’s stories, from a snide and frankly irrelevant reference to one critic’s past as an adult film star, to attacks upon other publications, and insinuations of a great, widespread conspiracy against him by the U.S. Army from the urban battlegrounds of Iraq to the FOIA offices in sunny Florida.
Here are the facts:
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.
Even to the end, Foer continues to blame everyone else for his continuing editorial failures., penning a fourteen-page excuse without a single, "I’m sorry."
The readers and staff deserve better, and it is past time for Franklin Foer to leave The New Republic.
Bob Owens has been covering the Beauchamp Scandal for Pajamas Media and the Confederate Yankee.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
27 Comments
1. Skyler:I couldn’t help but wonder why this magazine couldn’t find a way to actually visit the location and do some real reporting.
It’s expensive, but if you’re going to report about an exotic location and then have some serious questions about the veracity of the stories, it makes a lot of sense to send someone out there rather than rely on the author’s wife and a few fleeting phone calls and emails.
As for the failure to understand the handling characteristics of the Bradley, that’s just another symptom of the cause of this whole, sad story. The people who write for magazines are “journalists” and thus not very smart.
The problem is that there is almost no impact to a journalist or publisher that prints irresponsible and untrue and misleading articles. We’ve seen it with Dan Rather, Stephen Glass, CNN and Saddam, and so many others. They get their advertising, they make their impact on the voters, and they go on their merry way.
The first amendment is a great thing, but there should be some responsibility for the truth.
I suspect that the court this coming term will rule that the second amendment is an individual right, but they’re sure to allow it to be infringed for any number of reasons. I see no reason why the first amendment can’t be curtailed if the speaker or writer spreads lies intended to defraud citizens. Until we can hit these liars and idiots in their bank accounts, there will be no reason for them to change their ways.
Dec 1, 2007 - 3:52 pm 2. tjmmz:Bob, I commend your work. But, speaking of good editing practices, please re-read and re-edit your piece closely. At the time of this comment, the piece is full of typos and confusing, unprofessional grammatical lapses. Too many for me to report. Sorry, but that’s the truth.
Dec 1, 2007 - 4:10 pm 3. Kevin:…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.
He should have added, “But we can be confident that the events in his pieces didn’t occur in exactly the manner that he described them.
Dec 1, 2007 - 4:29 pm 4. Kevin:Ooh, I really hope you turn off comment moderation. It makes being a commenter so unenjoyable that many of us, myself at least, won’t comment.
And that makes it less fun to read the site, leading to less visits. It’s worth the risk of vile comments, if only for traffic reasons.
Dec 1, 2007 - 4:32 pm 5. Lester Dent:Great work on this story, Bob. There is a disconnect between editors of publications like TNR and, say, The S.F. Chronicle, and the business results of bad editing. The Chronicle has changed just about everything it could, from publisher to delivery times, to address the fact that it is probably the worst-performing major daily in the country as far as lost subscribers. Yet no one looks to the editor, who has remained unchanged for many years. If you market peat moss-flavored gum, and it doesn’t sell, changing the packaging and PR company and accusing competitors of conspiracy may not be the best thing – you might want to think about how no one likes the flavor. So long as the business side defers to editors, the market will not work to improve quality. People like Foer get away with absurdly destructive actions, often excusing incompetence as “creative license.”
Dec 1, 2007 - 4:45 pm 6. David Thomson:The New Republic responded to its critics like an O.J. Simpson lawyer. They squeezed the truth, bent it, and did other horrible things to it. It was obvious, by no later then the end of the first week, that Scott Thomas Beauchamp was lying. The editors could have saved themselves a lot of grief. It did not have to go this far.
Dec 1, 2007 - 4:47 pm 7. C-C-G:I already said it over on CY, but I’ll repeat it here.
Ya done good, Bob.
Dec 1, 2007 - 4:53 pm 8. Susan Katz Keating:I second the motion. Foer was instrumental in perpetrating what should have been a transparent hoax. He needs to skedaddle.
Dec 1, 2007 - 4:55 pm 9. airedale:I noticed that Mr. Foer gave names to some of the individuals (the guy who wore the skull as a cap and the one who killed the dogs for example). There are a couple more in addition to the guy who had to be removed from the area due to mental issues (could be stress could be something worse we don’t know). These would be good people to talk to in order to get their side of things. But it also raises the issue were they promised that they’d remain anonymous by TNR? It appears that they were. Did TNR just break their word?
Dec 1, 2007 - 5:06 pm 10. Susan Katz Keating:http://susankatzkeating.blogspot.com/2007/12/latest-on-laffaire-beauchamp.html
Dec 1, 2007 - 5:21 pm 11. Mark William Paules:To people like Foer and Beuachamp the truth is irrelevent. Only the so-called “narrative” is true. It remains true even if the evidence is faked. To question such might destroy the basis for their moral preening and ethical narcissism. Don’t waste your time expecting a genuine mea culpa; hell will sooner freeze over.
Dec 1, 2007 - 5:59 pm 12. Tucson Annie:Bob, way to go!
You did a great job of hounding them and keeping the topic in the blogosphere…but, I have to agree with tjmmz….there are so many grammatical errors in the above, that I found it painful to read….
But, once again…great job!
Dec 1, 2007 - 6:00 pm 13. Cannoneer No. 4:Camp Buehring
Dec 1, 2007 - 6:42 pm 14. Skyler:I also couldn’t help but marvel at Foer’s repeated insistence that only “journalists,” whatever that is, can be expected to understand what honesty is and why it is expected of someone writing an article for a magazine.
It seems to me that Scott Thomas was as much a “journalist” as Foer in his understanding of ethical behavior.
Dec 1, 2007 - 8:42 pm 15. Broadsword:Characteristics of a Bradley viz a viz Times New Roman font. Woman with burned face viz a viz Lucy Ramirez. Dan Rather’s denials and obsuscations viz a viz Frankling Foer’s. I see a pattern here. Which dinosaur will next sink into the tar pits?
Oh, and I like peat moss flavored gum.
Dec 2, 2007 - 5:55 am 16. Increase Mather:Can’t help but wonder at the very little coverage of this scandal by the MSM? Think it’d be different if a conservative publication was accused of making up stuff?
My guess is that it’d be another “macacca” moment for the WaPo and NYTs.
No double standard here.
Dec 2, 2007 - 6:04 am 17. fmfnavydoc:Congratulations Bob,
Your work on TNR and Foer should be used in Journalism schools as an example of what can happen to you in this age when you resort to using your paper/blog/show to deceive the public on what is really happening in the world.
As for Foer’s 14 page manifesto, that was nothing but mental masturbation on his part – “I was lied to, and made bad decisions, but I’m speaking TRUTH TO POWER”. If TNR’s parent company has some balls, Foer would be cleaning out his desk today, and they would be closing up shop by the end of the month. Foer and Beauchamp can stand proudly next to Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Jayson Blair and the other “stalwarts of journalistic integrity” that have been pwned over the last couple of years.
Bob – you need to have some theme music. How about “Another One Bites the Dust” by Queen?
Dec 2, 2007 - 7:35 am 18. Trochilus:Broadsword asks:
Which dinosaur will next sink into the tar pits?
Perhaps CNN for their unwillingness (so far) to address their debate performance by allow an obvious Clinton campaign plant on stage (twice!), along with the several other plants, in spite of CNN’s explicit and public representations to the contrary prior to the event.
Sheesh! We’ve got to hold our breaths for another 5 months?
Beauchamp, meanwhile, is remaining in country in an effort to salvage his military service.
I wonder if Scott was about to go public with his mea culpa and that was what essentially forced Foer out? After all, with what little he really said, why would Franklin wait so long? He was simply toughing it out.
My guess is that something had to prompt this “revelation.”
Dec 2, 2007 - 7:44 am 19. Tom Mustin:This one caught my eye:
“Foer continues to ignore the words of Major Renee D. Russo, the Kuwait-based officer who told TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle that the burned woman story was an urban myth or legend in early August.”
It immediately reminded me of the fantasist John F. Kerry. In Tour of Duty, he related (through Douglas Brinkley) an account of having seen dead bodies floating in the creek that separates Subic Bay Naval Station from the town of Olongapo. Every Navy man who has ever been to Subic has heard that story, and it is often retold in the officers’ club to credulous first-timers, ultimately punctuated by laughter. As far as I know, Kerry is the only man in history who ever repeated the myth as if it were his own personal experience. John Kerry, meet Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
Dec 2, 2007 - 8:51 am 20. MrJimm:I can easily imagine Foer’s “forensic anthropologist” confirming that “yes, the top of a human skull could be worn as a sort of yarmulke.” Without any details of what this “expert” actually confirmed, it’s worthless, totally worthless.
Dec 2, 2007 - 9:10 am 21. sux0rs this GOP:Any time you d**kheads want to figure out what happened to the 4000 Hezbollah fighters who allegedly took over East Beirut in September in Ben Smith’s mind, be our guest. Oh, I forgot, it doesn’t fit the meme of the 82nd Chairborne Division that the media is skewed with a liberal bias.
Dec 2, 2007 - 9:47 am 22. Josh:Your description of this dishonest reporting could easily be superimposed to describe the modus operandi of the Clinton’s political antics.
Dec 2, 2007 - 9:49 am 23. Susan Katz Keating:More on “The Fog of Foer:”
Dec 2, 2007 - 10:17 am 24. Raymond Barry:http://susankatzkeating.blogspot.com/2007/12/fog-of-foer.html
That reminds me. When my ship was in Olongapo (let’s hear it for the USS Platte AO24, glamour ship of the South China Sea) there was a story circulating about an army officer who was investigating reports of missing squeegie sharpeners. You don’t suppose…
Dec 2, 2007 - 9:00 pm 25. coldfront:Does anyone remember what actually went down during Y2K. It was the Pentagon, for 3 days.
Does anyone remember what happened worldwide during those 3 ‘invisible’ days?…..
Putin came to power.
I read it in the Boston Globe….it was an article wayoff to the side of back pages,about 1 inch by 1 inch.
all I could find:
http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/pentagon.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/05/y2k.pentagon.01/
& this:
“#6
Boston Globe
9 January 2000
[for personal use only]
RUSSIA
The next move
What little we know about Vladimir Putin suggests that he is more interested
in confrontation than reform
By David J. Kramer
Six months ago, nobody was mentioning Vladimir Putin as a possible prime
minister of Russia, let alone president. Six months ago, few people were
talking about Chechnya as the defining issue in Russian politics. Ten days
ago, virtually no one expected to wake up to the New Year’s Day news of Boris
Yeltsin’s resignation. Making predictions about Russia, in other words, is a
fool’s game.
It may not be wise, then, to virtually cede Russia’s presidential election in
Dec 3, 2007 - 10:35 am 26. fishbane:March to Putin, as conventional wisdom seems already to have done. But, for
the moment, it’s hard to imagine any other political figure in Russia -
including the top challenger, Yevgeny Primakov – being able to unseat Putin,
whose ratings hover around 70 percent support.”
http://www.cdi.org/russia/Johnson/4021.html
scroll down
I can’t wait for your similarly in-depth, months long analysis of K-Lo and her fabulist. What’s that? Everyone makes mistakes? Hm.
Dec 3, 2007 - 11:13 am 27. John Galt:OT – It would be really nice if there was something in the sidebar reminding us how to kill annoying features like lingospot.
Dec 8, 2007 - 7:46 pm