New Republic: Ron Paul's Newletter and Thomas Scott Beauchamp; Two Similar TNR Reporting Coups

The same blogs who busted The New Republic's chops for its bang-up job on the Thomas Scott Beauchamp fiasco are now holding it up as a beacon of journalistic excellence.

How did this occur, almost overnight?

Three little words: dis Ron Paul.

DBKP tries to stay neutral in the whacked out world of Ron Paul zealots and Ron Paul haters. That's hard enough, as both sides can see no middle ground on the Texas Congressman and Republican Presidential candidate.

Just weeks ago, most of the right Blogosphere raked TNR over the coals and laughed at its journalistic standards over Thomas Scott Beauchamp and his faux reporting in the Baghdad Diaries (as well as other past TNR trainwrecks involving Stephen Glass, Ruth Shalit, Lee Siegel and Spencer Ackerman).

Rightly so.

Now, TNR reprints some years-old remarks from a newsletter that Ron Paul has repeatedly and pointedly denounced as "a newsletter... published under my name that I did not edit."

Is this fair?

All's fair in love, war and politics, they say.

Is it rehabilitated journalism from a publication not known for practicing it over the last several years?

It is if you abhor Ron Paul.

Some of the headlines from the Blogosphere show the same good journalistic practices as TNR. One wonders why this crew didn't climb on TNR's bandwagon during the Beauchamp affair?

A skeptical blogopshere held TNR's feet to the fire then. But mention "Ron Paul" and "racism" in the same sentence and you've bought yourself a free pass in these very same precincts, apparently.

We saw these exact same quotes and charges months ago. After looking into it, we felt that it was a slur: the candidate explained in a statement his position on the issue and on the remarks in question.

Since it's been known for candidates to spin when confronted with uncomfortable evidence, we looked at Paul's other pronouncements over the years regarding free speech and racism, as well as his life-long principled commitment to Libertarianism.

We feel that a candidate should be judged on his actions, not words that were long ago disavowed as having been penned under his name and his distancing himself from the newsletter in question when it was brought to his attention.

By penning these words, we fully realize that nothing but vitriol awaits.

No problem.

We don't believe in Free Speech only when it's convenient or fits a particular agenda.

We also don't believe that TNR is much different today than it was a few months ago. Like the friend of a reformed drunk, we hope for the best for The New Republic, but we expect the worst.

This latest story confirms the wisdom of that approach.

As we've stated dozens of times, we agree with Ron Paul's positions; we disagree with Ron Paul's positions. Ho hum. That's almost every candidate.

What has us scratching our heads is that normally shrewd and wise people abandon all judgment and discrimination when the words "Ron Paul" are mentioned.

That's on both sides.

But right now, the anti-Paulians are our subject.

If the National Enquirer had run the John Edwards Love Child story (complete with facts, pictures, names, dates, etc.) under the headline, "John Edwards Love Child: Ron Paul Denies it Happened", a certain portion of the blogosphere would have leapt on that story immediately.

John Edwards would never have gotten a chance to any other another question from these stalwarts.

Our opinion of this long-ago Ron Paul newsletter is the same as it was when we checked into it a few months ago.

Not credible with what we know.

Our opinion in that same time period of The New Republic's high standards for truth and reporting haven't changed either.

Unlike others of our blogging brethren.

From RonPaul2008:

In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

The New Republic article ended with this catchy sentence, "In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."

It's not sure if TNR meant the "dredging up of accusations made and answered, with a touch of liberal pontification, masquerading as hard-hitting, up-to-minute journalism".

But it might have: that last sentence left the reader to make his own judgments.

I made mine.

TNR gambled that it could get back into the good graces of some readers and bloggers alike, who thought not so very long ago that it was a washed-up and broken down publication.

Right about now, looks like TNR gambled right.

by Mondoreb
[image: GatewayPundit]
Sources:
* Ron Paul's Statement on the New Republic and Old Newsletters
* Angry White Man

[DISCLAIMER: When writing this post, "we" is the royal "we". This is my viewpoint at this early hour and mine only, as no others at DBKP could have been consulted. I speak for myself only at this point about this issue. I thought that should be clear.--Mondoreb]






Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Scott Beauchamp: TNR Finally Confesses Left Blogosphere Silence Deafening

Franklin Foer's article finally admitting the problems over the Baghdad Diaries' Scott Beuchamp was a painful read.

TNR's behavior is perfectly understandable: after all, after their past journalistic mishaps, who'd want to yet admit to another?

I mean, come on: if TNR was a drunk and had this many relapses, they'd have signed up for Antabuse a long time ago.

THE really hilarious part of this whole sorry story is knee-jerk reaction of the usual suspects: the Fiercely-Independent, Principle-Driven Left Wing Blogosphere.

Ferocious fact-checkers to a man, they could be counted on to guard their reputation as those who check the facts and deliver the truth to their readers.

What "truth" did they deliver?

We now let you dip your toe into the left-wing pool of truth concerning TNR and Private Scott Beuchamp's Baghdad Diaries.

From Crooked Timbers: (with kudos for "Longest Introductory Sentence" on the Left.). The rightwing blogosphere, with assistance from the usual MSM types like Howard Kurtz has spent the last week or two trying to discredit a soldier, Scott Beauchamp, who wrote a “Baghdad Diary” for The New Republic, which included various examples of casually callous behavior on the part of US soldiers (nothing on the scale of Abu Ghraib or other proven cases). The Beauchamp case fits the general pattern pretty well. First, the wingers claimed that the Diary was a fabrication and that “Scott Thomas” was the creation of a writer who’d never been near Iraq. Then, when it became evident he was a real person, they rolled out the slime machine to discredit him. Then they engaged in amateur forensics to discredit particular items in his account (acres of screen space have been devoted to the question of whether the driver of a Bradley fighting vehicle can run over a dog). --One Endless Rathergate Digby thought the behavior of anyone wanting to know if a story is true or false is--well, we'll let him explain. After a tremendous amount of wingnut pressure on TNR to prove they hadn't been duped by an imposter, now that they know he does in fact exist, they are working their way into a complete frenzy going after this soldier as if he were al Qaeda and acting as though the hawkish New Republic has just endorsed Cindy Sheehan for president. It's like watching a bunch of piranhas attack some kids who accidentally fell into the water. It certainly should not have have garnered this vicious right wing attack from everyone from Bill Kristol to the lowliest denizens of the right blogosphere. They want to destroy this soldier for describing things that have been described in war reporting since Homer so they can worship "the troops" without having to admit that the whole endeavor is a bloody, horrible mess that only briefly, and rarely, offers opportunity for heroic battlefield courage (which, of course, it sometimes does as well.) --Digby: Wingnuts vs. Our Soldiers (Scott Thomas Beuchamp Edition) The ever-hopeful John Cole, at Balloon Juice, starts with no facts, but proves it's not going prevent his leaping into the fray against the lunatics attacking SCB. Let’s discuss Scott Beauchamp, who was widely regarded as not existing, but who now exists- much to the chagrin of the lunatic fringe of the right wing blogosphere. I guess we know why he didn’t put his real name on it- it is FRENCH sounding! Of course he wants us to lose! The VICHY have infilitrated the ARMY! --Open Thread July 26, 2007 Nicolle Belle at Crooks and Liars on the Weekly Standards' "besmirching": Max Blumenthal looks at the “reliable” sources that the Weekly Standard used to try to besmirch Scott Beauchamp: Matt Sanchez and Throbert McGee. And yet they still get a national platform. --Reliable Sources DailyKOS didn't fail to disappoint: their usual M.O. is up next. What fun! No facts, no problems. When short of hard info, trot out some invective--the usual substitute for facts. The RW bloggers went crazy, accusing TNR of making things up, and in their typical fashion "proving" that Scott Thomas was a fake. Scott Thomas turned out to be real, which led to the normal character assassination from the RW. --The "Scott Thomas" Affair: The Right Wing Wins Again Firedoglake couldn't really add anything about verifying Beauchamp, but they get to say "hate speech" and "Republicans" in the same paragraph, so it wasn't a total loss. The Left Trifecta is the previous two, plus "Hitler" in the same paragraph. It took them another couple paragraphs to work the Feurher into the mix. They do get partial credit for "frothing", though. The nameless fellow(s?) and good friend of Michelle Malkin's behind the right-wing blog aggregator Volunteer Opinion Journal thinks he's caught us all being naughty. Pretty mild stuff, compared to what his comrades were and are saying about Scott Thomas Beauchamp (for more, go here and here), but hey, you work with the "hate speech" you have, not the hate speech you wish you had -- such as what regularly issues from the posts and comments over at Michelle Malkin's shop. These people are the Republican base, and as TRex points out, this is precisely why the Republicans don't dare do a YouTube debate in which their base has any sort of say: It would hand the presidential election to the Democrats the same way that Pat Buchanan's Republican-pleasing froth-at-the-mouth speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention guaranteed that Bill Clinton would be our next president. --Hypocrite Much, Guys?

Okay, we could go on like this for a long time, but we've got to move on, much as I'm sure the above stalwart Left Wing Warriors will do on this particular issue.

They were noticeably absent from comment on the affair yesterday.

Probably too busy with their next piece about Hitler-like Michelle Malkin frothing hate speech about Left Wingers.

by Mondoreb
[image:devianttart]

Other sources:
The New Republic -Fog of War
Confederate Yankee - TNR Folds
The New Republic Tries to Come Clean
Hot Air - TNR: We Can No Longer Stand by Beuchamp's Stories
Patterico's Pontifications - The New Republic Retracts Beauchamp Stories



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

TNR's USS Beauchamp Sets Sail To Journalistic Sargasso Sea

The New Republic's "Shock Troops" story has clearly turned from Scott Beauchamp to the lack of responsibility at TNR. First stonewalling, now talking about non-issues, TNR refuses to address any of the article's disputed points. Next week's tactic may be for the magazine to enter rehab to garner it some sympathy.

Hot Air is not buying the latest bait-and-switch tactics at TNR.

The rehabilitation of Scott Thomas Beauchamp may have been premature.

We are now to believe that two weeks after Scott Thomas Beauchamp issued the Mother of All No Comments to his editors at The New Republic on tape, he rang up Franklin Foer and told him that he still stood by all of his articles (minus the one little detail about shifting the melted woman story from the battlefield DFAC in Iraq to the rear echelon DFAC in Kuwait, and prior to Beauchamp’s entry in the war, details which render the story nonsense). We’re not supposed to notice that. We’re also not supposed to remember how TNR’s fact-checkers manipulated their Bradley subject matter expert with vague and misleading questions designed to lead the witness toward their point of view, rather than the facts, and we’re also not supposed to notice that to date TNR hasn’t responded to that allegation at all. Put that out of your mind.

No compass bearings can be obtained in the Sargasso Sea. The USS TNR also has trouble with its bearings as this latest chapter in the Scott Beauchamp story has been released to the general blogging public. As Bryan at Hot Air succinctly points out: in order to find believable TNR’s latest version of the Truth about Scott Beauchamp’s “Shock Troops”, one has to check their memory at their keyboard. The earlier chapters in this Epic Saga of Deniability and Credibility still need answers.

When will TNR admit that they failed to fact check Scott Beauchamp. If they had done so at the very beginning,they could have presented their case without the “Army refuses to cooperate with us” cover.

At this juncture, our failure to believe Scott Beauchamp has morphed into a failure to believe TNR. Past TNR performance in the believability department is not helping. If they continue to stand by their man, without addressing the issues, TNR risks losing any remaining shreds of credibility.

If they haven't already done so.

by Little Baby Ginn
notes by mondoreb
[image:commongroundcommonsense]
Back to Front Page.

Beauchamp, TNR Take A Powder: 2 More Forgotten Brand Names

[image:cbsnews]

by Mondoreb

When you're looking for succinct, usually-hilarious reaction to news, you could do worse than read Mark Steyn, the doomsday-slinging prophet of European demographic decline. The revelation that The New Republic knew that its crack war zone reporter was not what he was cracked up to be gets the once-over from Steyn at the Corner:

No disrespect, Kathryn, but count me among those who raised an eyebrow over your five o'clock Scott Thomas Beauchamp post. It's not about Beauchamp "confessing". Given the alarm bells Beauchamp's original piece set off among those familiar with the subject matter, and given that the anecdote on which the entire premise of the essay hangs has already been determined to have occurred in Kuwait rather than Iraq, all The New Republic had going for it were its editors' insistence that (a) Beauchamp was standing by his story, and (b) the military were preventing him from speaking to them.

It has now been revealed that (a) Beauchamp declined to stand by his story, and (b) the editors spoke with him and knew this weeks ago. Presumably The New Republic's readers are relatively relaxed about the editors colluding in slandering the troops at a time of war: only uptight squares get hung up on that sort of thing. But they ought surely to be concerned at the abuse of trust perpetrated by the magazine against its own readers.

Steyn goes on to relate some facts about TNR's ownership.

Few remember that back in the early 1960s, the best-selling beer in America was--Carling Black Label? CBL's "Hey Mabel--Black Label" was much more recognized among consumers than Budweiser's "When You've Said Bud, You've Said it All".

For consumers of news and the truth, The New Republic is soon to be consigned to the forgotten name brand remainder bin.
TNR will then join CBL.

Back to Front Page.