Scott Beauchamp says he never fabricated anything, and apparently that’s good enough for Spencer Ackerman.
Like everyone who has ever stepped up to defend Beauchamp’s work, Ackerman is missing important swaths of the story. He therefore failed to ask Beauchamp a whole lot of important questions when he caught up with him. Do we have to go through this all over again? If so, I really wish this hadn’t come up while I’m a) trying to focus on preparatory research for stuff I’m planning to report on in Denver next week and b) really tired. (Acute insomnia last night.) I’ll try to pick over some of the problems with Ackerman’s article at some point, if I can find the time and energy.
