The Weekly Standard calls PolitiFact on another faulty entry

Working at this blog part time as I do, I allow plenty of opportunities for commentary to slide.

A recent PolitiFact entry about the economic impact of the cap and trade carbon tax raised red flags for me, but I realized that my incomplete grasp of the economics involved would make it hard for me to evaluate the PolitiFact analysis without a disproportionate time investment.

So the biggest of hat tips to the good folks at The Weekly Standard, who kept after the expert source used by PolitiFact and undermined the foundation for their Truth-O-Meter rating ("Pants on Fire").

The explanation is sufficiently technical so that I suggest reading the account at the Standard. But the response from representatives of PolitiFact is worth quoting and noting.

After corresponding with Reilly, I contacted Politifact's reporter Alexander Lane and editor Bill Adair to ask if they would correct their report that the GOP's estimate of cap and trade's cost is a "pants on fire" falsehood.

Lane wrote in an email: "The detail of my piece that you think needs correcting seems to be in flux...". The "detail" to which he referred was Reilly's admission that the real cost per household would be $800--not $215 per household as Politifact originally reported.

The story goes on to recount other instances of apparent carelessness in the PolitiFact entry, then reports another exchange with PolitiFact:

When I asked Bill Adair over the phone last week if Politifact would correct its report, he didn't answer the question and ended our conversation by saying: "You're getting me at a really bad time. I would love to talk about this any time tomorrow." Adair did not reply to further inquiries.

Of course not. He was probably busy editing more shoddy fact-checking and preparing for the Pulitzer Prize party.

An unsurprising update on the Beauchamp saga

Mixed signals on the nature of the findings of the Scott Beauchamp investigation, courtesy of Michael Goldfarb's account of Col. Ricky Gibbs from a bloggers' roundtable.

In response to the first question, Gibbs said that he had directed an investigation into Beauchamp's allegations and determined them to be false. "The incidents did not take place," Gibbs said. And Beauchamp "admitted that himself" to the investigating officer. For clarity, I asked Gibbs again, did Beauchamp admit the stories were false? "He did admit to the investigating officer that the incidents did not take place."

At the end of the call, Gibbs returned to the subject of Beauchamp's confession to say that "Beauchamp did not recant," but that "he does not stand by the story." This caused some puzzlement among the folks on the line.
(The Weekly Standard)

The Armed Services aren't really distinguishing themselves any better than The New Republic on this one, though of course the Army has different purposes in mind than a political magazine. It may fall to Scott Beauchamp to offer the details of the investigation, putting us right back where we started.

... the wheels of the investigation snagged a dog, which was dragged alongside the investigation for about a half hour ...


*****

ABC joins in on the Beauchamp reporting

"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 his claims," Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer for Multinational Division-Baghdad, wrote in a statement sent to the Weekly Standard, the magazine that first questioned Beauchamp's credibility.
(ABC News)

Skip one paragraph, and then ...

Lamb reiterated the statement in an e-mail to ABCNEWS.com. Asked about any reprimand or punishment that Beauchamp could face under military rules, Lamb wrote, "What may or may not happen to PVT Beauchamp is a personnel matter, and we don't discuss those publicly."

The New Republic looks ridiculous for using a limited quotation of Major Lamb to defend themselves while USA Today, Fox News and ABC News are reporting the story in accord with the account from the Weekly Standard.

The return of Pong: The Beauchamp saga in the news (Updated)

Not by much trailing the Weekly Standard's announcement that Scott Beauchamp had recanted his "Shock Troops" claims, the New Republic weighed in with another statement at The Plank:

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."
(TNR)

So, at least one of the publications will get egg on its face regarding its publishing standards--and possibly both! This back-and-forth is getting funny.

The announcement at the Plank doesn't refute the report from the Weekly Standard, of course. It simply tells us what we already knew--that the report wasn't yet official--and that Major Steven F. Lamb doesn't know the outcome (assuming he's telling the truth).

clipped from www.e-oss.net

Time will tell.

Update:
And maybe sooner rather than later (hat tip to Michelle Malkin)

This morning, military officials said their review is over. "The investigation is complete and the allegations from PVT Beauchamp are false," Maj. Steven Lamb, a spokesman for Multi National Division-Baghdad, says in an e-mail to On Deadline. "Anything that may or may not happen from his actions are personnel related and we don't share that publicly."
(USA Today)

To explain the obvious, which Michelle Malkin declined to do for understandable reasons, USA Today is claiming to have confirmation that Beauchamps claims were false from the same source that the New Republic is using to debunk claims their man Beauchamp peddled bunkum.

Refer up a few paragraphs to the graphic, and prepare for the next volley.

The Weekly Standard: "Beauchamp recants"

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.
(The Weekly Standard)

Hmmm. That didn't take long.

I'll admit that I find it a bit odd that Beauchamp offered his recantation via signing a sworn statement. I'd have expected the admission to come through verbal testimony. But maybe I just don't understand the way the military operates.

Though this is the outcome I expected (exaggeration based on a germ of truth), I'm keeping the book open on this one.

I expect to see more on this story from the other side, including the New Republic. Plus I'd like to see a more complete story from the armed services, including the text of the sworn statement.