Exactly one week ago today on August 2nd, the editors of the magazine The New Republic posted A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp, in which they claimed: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.
In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)
What is most interesting about the The New Republic's statement is that while they state they spoke to "dozens of people" in fact-checking their stories, they refused to cite the names of their experts, or explain their qualifications—those qualities that make them experts.
The reasoning behind that purposeful obfuscation is becoming ever more clear with each passing day.
In addition to avoiding the statements made by Army PAOs that Beauchamp's claims were "false" in their totality, and that one claim in particular was the stuff of "urban myth or legend," it appears that one of the experts cited by The New Republic's editors was not fully appraised of what TNR was trying to justify in one claim in particular.
Read the rest.
Michelle Malkin makes THE point:
Winter Soldier Syndrome will only be cured when the costs of slandering the troops outweigh the benefits. Exposing Scott Thomas Beauchamp and his brethren matters because the truth matters. The honor of the military matters. The credibility of the media matters.
UPDATE: readers suek points to an atricle in the American Thinker that lists a a few of the examples of lies and plagiarism that the MSM have committed.
3 comments:
The book "Stolen Valour" points out a lot of the viscious stories told about soldiers during the Vietnam war and refutes them. Years later, only those who choose to read the book are likely to see those refutation, and they become simply a footnote in history.
With the internet, there is an ability to address the lies and inaccuracies on an immediate basis. American Thinker has an article today
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/its_not_just_scott_beauchamp.html
highlighting the botched reporting over the years. The internet allows the record to be corrected immediately, which changes how they will be viewed in the future. It's a good thing.
Ok...that link didn't work very well. Try this one.
http://tinyurl.com/27w535
suek,
Thanks. That was a useful addition.
People all over the world have been lied to on a grand scale by the media. Thanks to the internet, we now have ways to fact-check as never before and make others aware that these are lies.
This is real 'power to the people."
Post a Comment