One more post on Elspeth Reeve (Beauchamp)

I ran across a suitable postscript for my tentative final assessment of the Elspeth Reeve portion of the TNR/Scott Thomas/Scott Beauchamp saga.

I had judged that Elspeth Reeve shares some of the fault for the problems at TNR for not taking note of the ethical quagmire of fact-checking hubby's stories.

In an interview Friday, U.S. Army private Scott Thomas Beauchamp's wife Elspeth Reeve, a former reporter-researcher at The New Republic, told the Observer that she was excited when someone at the magazine assigned her to fact-check one of her husband's dispatches from Iraq.

“I was like, 'Sweet! I can talk to Scott on TNR’s dime!'” Ms. Reeve said.
(The New York Observer)

The blurb above attaches to a subsequent story also printed in the Observer. It makes Reeve appear a bit flakier than I suspected since she appears to stand behind Beauchamp's stories and provides no indication that she realizes that she stepped in ethical doo-doo by accepting the fact checking assignment. Though TNR rightly gets top billing in the blame department on that one.

clipped from www.observer.com

Best wishes to the happy couple; may they leave the TNR snafu far in their wake. And consider careers outside of journalism.

*****

TNR stepped in it

The explosion of commentary in the wake of Franklin Foer's final take on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp saga has begun.

I've only read through the second page of Foer's epic discourse, but I was brought up short by TNR's admission that they let Elspeth Reeve fact-check Scott Beauchamp's third published piece--that's after she was also known (albeit not widely) as Mrs. Scott Beauchamp. As I noted here, there's no way TNR should have ever let that happen.

But there was one avoidable problem with our Beauchamp fact-check. His wife, Reeve, was assigned a large role in checking his third piece. While we believe she acted with good faith and integrity--not just in this instance, but throughout this whole ordeal--there was a clear conflict of interest. At the time, our logic--in hindsight, obviously flawed--was that corresponding with a soldier in Iraq is logistically difficult and Reeve was already routinely speaking with him. It was a mistake--and we've imposed new rules to prevent future fact-checking conflicts of interest.
(TNR)

Foer writes that Reeve performed her fact-checking in good faith and I trust that is true at this point, pending the specific exposure of fact-checking errors. There is a problem with the defense of Reeve, however. She should have known she shouldn't be fact-checking Beauchamp's stories. Off with her head? Of course not. Both Reeve and Beauchamp are redeemable figures.

Simply put, however, Reeve does emerge with a dinged reputation. She published a story using her school chums (Beauchamp was one of them) as sources without revealing their relationship, and fact-checked hubby's published work. While TNR should not have allowed it in the first place, she should have protested regardless.

More when I get time.

*****

TNR breaks the suspense, comments on Beauchamp

Since our last statement on “Shock Troops,” a Diarist by Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp that we published in our July 23 issue, we have continued our investigation into the article’s veracity. On Wednesday, for a brief period, The Drudge Report posted several documents from the Army’s own investigation into Beauchamp’s claims. Among those documents was a transcript of a phone conversation that TNR Editor Franklin Foer and TNR Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic had with Beauchamp on September 6—the first time the Army had granted TNR permission to speak with Beauchamp since it cut off outside contact with him on July 26. During this conversation, Beauchamp refused to discuss his article at all: “I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything,” he said. In light of that phone call, some have asked why The New Republic has not retracted “Shock Troops.”
(The Plank at The New Republic)

That, and why TNR said nothing about the conversation.

The explanation goes on to say that TNR just wanted to get out the truth. Apparently not the truth that Beauchamp was free to talk to the press but chose not to talk to the press, however. The update admits that Beauchamp's words in the phone converation "raised serious doubts" but not enough for TNR to tell anybody about it.

The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.

So how's that investigation going?

"I'm saying that I'd rather you not to talk to the Washington Post, Newsweek or whoever else until we put our final judgment on your piece."
(leaked document)

*****

The obligatory Scott Beauchamp update (Updated)

No new observations from me at present; just noting that the Drudge Report claims to have documents from the Army's investigation into the events described by Scott Thomas Beauchamp in his "Baghdad Diarist" series for The New Republic.

I'll be more interested when copies of the documents are posted at the Smoking Gun or the like.

Update: Drudge has posted supposedly leaked documents detailing phone conversations between Scott Beauchamp and TNR folks (including Franklin Foer).

If this stuff is legit, then it's curtains for TNR.

clipped from michellemalkin.com

As bad as I could have imagined, from the look of it.

Beauchamp, in my opinion, redeems himself somewhat with the attitude of looking out for those around him (I assume he means his Army buds) and making that his overriding focus. Maybe his service in the Army will change his life positively in ways he did not expect.

*****

Scott Beauchamp online again

He's got his laptop (or at least access to a computer), for his MySpace page has been updated.

That means we can expect an update through The New Republic any day now.



Update: I find that Bob Owens was at least a day ahead of me on this one.

*****

Beauchamp appendix: Pajamas Media interviews Major Cross

Bob Owens interviewed Major John Cross for Pajamas Media. Major Cross led the investigation into the events Scott Beauchamp, writing as "Scott Thomas," reported in a series of stories for The New Republic.

Of note:

Owens: Do you think it is likely that some soldiers may have told The New Republic one story, and then provided a different story to investigating officers?

Cross: I can’t speculate about anything involving The New Republic, but I can speak to our procedures. When conducting the investigation, I focused on the information and evidence collected from the Soldiers in PVT Beauchamp’s unit in the form of written and signed affidavits, which did not support the events portrayed in the story. As all of the Soldiers interviewed during the course of the investigation made sworn statements, they understand the consequences of making false official statements.

(read the rest at Pajamas Media)

My source said that everything Beauchamp wrote was true (apparently including the FOB Falcon location for the mess hall incident). Evidently he wasn't part of the investigation. Or maybe Major Cross just doesn't remember.

"In the Know" regarding Scott Thomas Beauchamp

The St. Petersburg Times continues to use its "In the Know--In the Times" ad jingle to call attention to "Florida's Best Newspaper."

Occasionally I like to check with the online edition and see what I would know about certain things if I were getting my information from the Times.

I've had a blast following and writing about the Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair burbling along at the New Republic and elsewhere, but the story doesn't register at the Times. The New York Times, yes. The St. Petersburg Times, no.

I wonder how long it will take the local paper to let people in on the story? And I wonder where they'll bury it?

The Tampa Tribune hasn't picked it up, either, so far as I can tell.

Bob Steele on the Beauchamp imbroglio

The Poynter Institute is in my backyard (no, not literally!), so the Associated Press story on the Scott Beauchamp story interested me especially.

Bob Steele, the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values at The Poynter Institute school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla., said granting a writer anonymity "raises questions about authenticity and legitimacy."

Steele said he was troubled by the fact that the magazine did not catch the scene-shifting from Kuwait to Iraq of the incident Beauchamp described involving the disfigured woman.

He added that he was also troubled by the relationship between Beauchamp and Reeve, his wife, who works at The New Republic. "It raises the possible specter of competing loyalties, which could undermine the credibility of the journalism," he said.

(AP, The Hinesburg Journal)

Steele is right on target. This is the New Republic, not far removed from the Stephen Glass reporting scandal (the TNR writer who made up stories).

TNR took the questionable step of publishing stories by an effectively anonymous author. The magazine compounded that error by choosing an anonymous author who was engaged in a romantic relationship with a TNR staffer, and keeping that information from the reader along with the identity of the author.

Steele is correct to identify those aspects of the issue as troubling, but the real scandal in this story (other than the implicit slander of U.S. troops) is that TNR proceeded to publish "Scott Thomas" without carefully fact-checking his work against the troubling backdrop Steele outlined.

Those three editorial decisions will probably cause some heads to roll at the New Republic.

Hat tip to Ace of Spades HQ.

Knee-slapping material at "the Smirking Chimp"

Max Blumenthal offered a take on the Scott Beauchamp saga on August 3.

As might be expected merely from the name of the site, he produced a slanted version of events along with the apparently obligatory character attacks.

In attempt to challenge the wild notion that atrocities could occur amidst a violent occupation, the neoconservative Weekly Standard's Matthew Goldfarb published an article declaring that TNR's Baghdad Diary was "looking more like fiction."
(the Smirking Chimp)

Follow the link that Blumenthal helpfully stuck right in his commentary, and you can see that Goldfarb (nor the contributing writers) said nothing about the impossibility of atrocities committed by American troops. All we need is the memory of Abu Ghraib for that. Look at the content of Goldfarb's piece (and the bulk of the work criticizing Thomas' account, for that matter), and it is apparent that the details provided by the author causes the questioning of his account. To wit: A woman with severe burns on her face that soldiers in that location could not recall, a Bradley vehicle that performs like it came out of a James Bond movie (except that no animals were harmed during the filming of this motion picture ...), and a report of a mass grave site that was news to the troops in the area.

The fact that atrocities might occur in real life does not make it OK to make up stories of atrocities and then claim that they happened in real life, Mr. Blumenthal.

I've yet to comprehend the tendency of the left to critize gay Republicans. Blumenthal was among many to lambaste Goldfarb for relying on Matt Sanchez reports. Thus far, Sanchez is vindicated in his reporting. Official announcements on the Beauchamp investigation have conformed to Sanchez's reporting, regardless of Blumenthal's emphasis on Sanchez's history in gay porn and prostitution. Blumenthal found it outrageous that Goldfarb hadn't mentioned either the scandalous gay stuff or a fraud investigation ("'[Sanchez] wrongfully solicited funds to support [his] purported deployment to Iraq' by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul.").

Get serious, Blumenthal. If any of that is supposed to be relevant then by the same token we should expect to be informed up front that the "Baghdad Diarist" was married to a TNR staffer.

Blumenthal's post, instead of exposing character assassination by conservatives, amounts to "Stand aside and let me show you how it's done."

Scott Beauchamp ridicules the thick ankles of a female sculpture prior to his deployment to Iraq. Later, he would report having ridiculed a living woman with a disfigured face.

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.

What of Elspeth Reeve?

This is all opinion.
***

In an earlier post, I wrote that Elspeth Reeve/Elspeth Beauchamp's communications with Scott Beauchamp would be an interesting issue if the latter's stories were factually undermined.

For now, my sense on that issue is that it wouldn't be interesting except in terms of human interest.

From what I've seen of Reeve's writing--and I've surveyed a decent amount--she hews tight to proper journalistic standards with the possible exception of the story she wrote about the abortion protest in Washington (featuring personal acquaintances as sources?). I'd find it hard to believe that she had anything to do with Beauchamp's handling of fact, working for now on the assumption that Beauchamp's retraction is what it seems to be.

My best guess is that Beauchamp began to smell glory and tried to impress TNR (and Mrs. Beauchamp). I doubt TNR gave Elspeth Beauchamp any role in fact-checking hubby's stories. That would be beyond reckless.

Expect the fault to fall on Beauchamp for embellishing his stories with exaggeration and/or lies, and on the editorial staff at TNR for not having sufficient olfactory powers to flunk Beauchamp themselves on the sniff test.

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.

Kevin Drum not quite up to analyzing TNR fact check

SCOTT THOMAS FOLLOWUP....Remember Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the soldier in Iraq who wrote a piece last month for the New Republic in which he recounted stories of (a) mocking a disfigured woman, (b) a fellow soldier who wore a piece of a child's skull he had found, and (c) another fellow soldier who ran over dogs with his Bradley fighting vehicle? Well, TNR has just put up their investigation into Beauchamp's piece, which included talking with "current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively, [and] five other members of Beauchamp's company."

The result? They "all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously." The only error they uncovered was that one of the incidents apparently took place at an Army base in Kuwait, not Iraq.
(CBS News, Washington Monthly)

Oh, well if TNR says everything checked out then end of story. In fact, we must wonder why anybody questioned the story in the first place. After all, if it appeared in TNR then it must be true.

Drum's apparent disinclination to examine the nature of TNR's statement, and his failure to make his own mention of the admitted inaccuracy of the Thomas story is jaw-dropping.

I wonder if his inability to sniff out inconsistency and irrelevancy in an official statement characterizes his entire career in journalism?

TNR makes a statement on Scott Beauchamp

The New Republic surprised me by updating their examination of Scott Thomas' Beauchamp's "Shock Troops" story.

Beauchamp's essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: "We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right."

The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp's on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.
(The New Republic)

I am slightly surprised that TNR calls it an "important discrepancy." It's true that it's an important discrepancy, because of how it works into the time line of events. As Spree at Wake up America noted, the Kuwait location puts the incident prior to Beauchamp's participation in hostilities, and just a short period of weeks (or even days) after leaving Germany. The digression of character, at least in the case of Beauchamp, preceded his involvement in armed hostilities. Perhaps his friend had previous service in a war zone.
The friend's report contains an additional and more subtle discrepancy. Where Beauchamp describes an "unusually crowded" dining area, the anonymous supporting witness says "I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right." That seems like an unusual detail if the hall were unusually crowded.

TNR claimed a degree of corroboration for the graveyard tale:

More important, two witnesses have corroborated Beauchamp's account. One wrote in an e-mail: "I can wholeheartedly verify the finding of the bones; U.S. troops (in my unit) discovered human remains in the manner described in 'Shock Troopers.' [sic] ... [We] did not report it; there was no need to. The bodies weren't freshly killed and thus the crime hadn't been committed while we were in control of the sector of operations." On the phone, this soldier later told us that he had witnessed another soldier wearing the skull fragment just as Beauchamp recounted: "It fit like a yarmulke," he said.

I wonder how the second witness contributed to the corroboration?

My problem with this story has always been the problem of having a child's skull fragment fit an adult's skull "like a yarmulke." The skulls of children, at least in my experience, tend to be smaller than those of adults. I need more than anonymous verification to accept that detail. I don't rule out the possibility that it could happen, but I'm certainly skeptical. Maybe the adult had a tiny head, and the fragment came from a child with a great big skull. Not likely, but conceivable.

Spree also rightly noted that it was a stretch at best for TNR to claim that the Beauchamp account was consistent with a report of a "children's cemetary" appearing in The Weekly Standard. The anonymous witness improved on the Beauchamp account by refraining from placing the origin of the burial in the Hussein era. TNR, nonetheless, double-checked with a forensic pathologist the possibility of tufts of hair clinging to a "long-buried" skull. It seems to me that the "rotting flesh" was a bigger problem than the tufts of hair. I wonder what the forensic pathologist had to say about that?

He observed that he was grateful his hair had just been cut--since it would make it easier to pick out the pieces of rotting flesh that were digging into his head.
(TNR, "Shock Troops" by Scott Thomas)

It's possible that the "joker and troublemaker" made the statement attributed to him by Beauchamp even if there were no bits of rotting flesh left on the skull. Or Beauchamp could have embellished his account.

TNR did a nice job clarifying the maneuverability of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle--but I still have a problem with that account, also.

The Bradley has tracks, like a tank.

If I'm an editor for this story, I'm wondering how an animal can be "dragged" by a track vehicle by having its extremity caught in the tracks.

He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road.
(TNR, "Shock Troops" by Scott Thomas)

Run the video and try to imagine it.

If the dog is caught in the tracks, the only dragging that will happen is when the body is pulled from the rear of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle with the top portion of the track. That type of dragging would be worthy of some description in an account with the type of theme that Beauchamp apparently intended.
Could the dog be caught other than in the tracks? I don't see how (and Beauchamp doesn't describe it other than being caught in the tracks), but perhaps a veteran with Bradley experience can shed some light on that point.

This one reads to me like the type of embellishment a mechanically disinclined person might imagine (when he's not thinking that people commit suicide by sticking their heads in the oven via the heat of the oven).

The doubts about this story are too substantial to be treated with anonymous and incomplete corroboration.

Filling in some of the history on Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Over the past year Scott Thomas Beauchamp appears to have gone AWOL, as well as dumping a girl to whom he was engaged in favor of the union with Elspeth Reeve of the New Republic.

A member of the jilted girl's family offered an account of Beauchamp that had him shipping out for Iraq in September of 2006, after entering into an engagement relationship with "Priscilla" (as she is called on Beauchamp's MySpace page).

In April, according to this source, Beauchamp was granted two weeks of R&R. He used the time to travel to Germany, without informing his fiancee in spite of their proximity. Beauchamp apparently married Elspeth Reeve during this span of time, and evidently his failure to report for duty on time resulted in his demotion from SP4 to PV2.

Yo Champ, let me know where your at, moon said you should have been back already. well just let me know. later
("majmaj", at the Beauchamp Myspace page, May 16 2007 8:51 a.m.)

***
Know as little as I do about military rank?

E1. . . PV1 PVT. . . . . . Private
E2. . . PV2 PVT. . . . . . Private
E3. . . PFC . . . . . . . . Private First Class
E4. . . CPL SP4. . . . . . Corporal / Specialist Four
E5. . . SGT SP5. . . . . . Sergeant / Specialist Five
(NoQuarter.org)

Mrs. Scott Beauchamp? Update: Hypothesis confirmed (Updated x3)

Various blogs have made the connection between Scott Thomas Beauchamp and Elspeth Reeve--the latter an employee of The New Republic.

Reeve is from Atlanta.

Reeve, BJ '05, earned degrees in magazine journalism and political science. From Atlanta, Ga., she received a certificate of merit for her article, "Behind the Bars." The article, which was printed in Vox, was part of a four-article series and examined the criminal justice system in the United States. Vox is an award-winning weekly city magazine that appears in the Missourian.

Upon graduation, Reeve interned at Time magazine and now works for the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C.

(Missouri School of Journalism)

And that helped put some context to some of Beauchamp's Myspace comments:

clipped from profile.myspace.com a real spicy braudra Apr 3 2007 11:04A what i wouldn't give for a long walk/talk around chimney springs. i love you i miss you

Where's Chimney Springs?

Southwest of Atlanta.

Chimney Springs was the fastest growing community in Atlanta from 1976 through the early 1980's.
(Chimney Springs Homeowners Association)

It seems that Beauchamp married Reeve earlier than they had planned (in Germany?). Braudra dropped a number of additional clues, by the way, indicating intimacy with Beauchamp.

Mar 23 2007 2:51P

too much space between.

how is life unfolding?

i miss you and i want to know everything.

TNR offices compared to Germany?

Mar 13 2007 10:57A

i miss you.

There are a few interesting comments from ARSB in various MySpace locations.

Anyhoo, the connection between Reeve and Beauchamp does appear to explain TNR's choice of Scott Thomas as their intrepid war correspondent.
Now let's see if his stories check out or not.

Update: Oh, and I'd bet $20 that the quotation used by "a real spicy braudra"

"stuffing her shadow in her mouth as she goes"

was written by Scott Beauchamp.

Update: Confirmation, via Howard Kurtz (hat tip to Dean Barnett posting at HughHewitt.townhall.com):

The magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer." Foer also said Beauchamp "has put himself in significant jeopardy" and "lost his lifeline to the rest of the world" because military officials have taken away his laptop, cellphone and e-mail privileges.

(the Washington Post)

Update II, Correction: Whether because of a faulty map or a temporary inability to properly read a map, Chimney Springs is northwestern suburb of Atlanta rather than to the city's southwest as I had earlier reported.

Update III: Correction: Though the reasoning that led to the conclusion that "a real spicy braudra" was Elspeth Reeve was reasonable, it seems safe to conclude that it was wrong. That MySpace identity appears to belong to a different friend of Scott Beauchamp who, like E. Reeve, was from Atlanta and living in the Northeastern United States.