The fact-challenged publication's newly issued "Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp" fails to pass the smell test.
p>
The
New Republic
yesterday posted yet another
editorial
on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp
situation
and on its attempts to "re-report" his anecdotes with further investigation (always a great idea for a "journalistic" outlet that wishes to be respected).
p>According to the editors, Beauchamp was discovered by "Elspeth Reeve, a
TNR
reporter-researcher, whom he later married." What he had to say was believable because he was a soldier in Iraq and because "conservatives and liberals alike praised" his first essay. Further:
BR>
All of Beauchamp's essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp's account.
BR>As to the "Shock Troops" incident? In a nutshell: the story about the disfigured woman was (reportedly) true, but the location was wrong; rather than taking place at FOB Falcon in Baghdad, it now supposedly "occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq." But this error (if it is the only one) is okay, because "Beauchamp acknowledged his error" and "we (TNR) sincerely regret this mistake."
p>