TNR weighs in again on Scott Beauchamp

I haven't rushed to respond to TNR's latest response on the topic of Scott Beauchamp. The commentary made it look like there really wasn't much new.

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ promptly gave a fairly comprehensive response, but I'm going to go ahead and file a few notes anyway.


TNR acknowledged the legitimacy of concerns over accuracy.

This is why we have sought to re-report the story, in the process speaking with five soldiers in Beauchamp's company who substantiate the events described in Beauchamp's essay.

This phrasing looks suspicious. TNR's recounting of its re-reporting made it look like details surrounding the events described had received some corroboration. The phrasing here tends to suggest that five soldiers jumped aboard with every detail. The current apologetic doesn't jibe with TNR's earlier justifications. I suspect they would have communicated more accurately with "who substantiated various details in Beauchamp's account."

TNR complains that the Army isn't allowing any examination of its investigation. That's a perfectly legitimate complaint. I made known the fact that I'd very much like to know the content of any sworn statement made by Pvt. Beauchamp. A blanket statement by the military that Beauchamp's stories were false is no better than TNR's claim that five (anonymous) soldiers substantiated Beauchamp's claims.

Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles.

Did he describe the nature of the statements at all for his editors? What sort of statements having nothing to do with contradicting his articles would necessitate "pressure" tactics?

Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth.

The above is nonsense.

You stand by a writer who is not able to defend himself if the facts warrant the defense. You also stand by a writer who is not able to defend himself if you know him well enough to vouch for him. Elspeth Beauchamp is probably the only person at TNR who knows Scott Beauchamp well enough to use that basis for defending him.

And that's where TNR's errors come in. More than defending Scott Beauchamp, they have their own errors with which to deal. The details in Beachamp's stories don't add up, and TNR's attempts to re-report the story look like little more than thin justifications (standing by a writer who can't defend himself regardless of the facts).

From the look of things, TNR tried to skimp on fact-checking by choosing a writer based on personal connections. What started out as a hedge against inaccuracy is looking more and more like a self-made trap that has ensnared the magazine.