A Point of Honor
Scott Beauchamp doesn't matter.
He's a twice-AWOL serial liar with a pending mental health evaluation who can't write believable military fiction EVEN WHILE IN THE MILITARY. He's powerless, has been tried, found guilty and punished, and at this point, a distraction. We've been focusing on the wrong things. What matters is the New Republic's advertisers. No, not their editors, their advertisers. We know that TNR allowed all three of Scott Beauchamp's stories to be published without being competently fact-checked, if fact-checked at all. We know that the editors of TNR, led by Franklin Foer, lied when they said that the stories had been competently fact-checked, we know they deceived their readers and misled at least one civilian expert in an attempt to create a whitewash of an investigation. We know The New Republic attempted to stonewall their way through obvious, blatant, and grievous breaches of journalistic ethics. In so doing, they have attacked the service, integrity, and honor of an entire company of American soldiers serving in a combat zone to avoid taking responsibility for their own editorial and ethical failures. Foer will win the current game we're playing because he can stonewall his way though it. It is obvious his bosses don't care as long as it doesn't cost them money. So we change the game. Below are a list of recent advertisers that have placed ads with either the print edition of The New Republic or the web site tnr.com.| Alfred A. Knopf | Allstate | Amazon.com | American Gas Station | |
| American Petroleum Institute | AstroZeneca (current issue) | Auto Alliance | ||
| Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (current issue) | BP (current issue) | Chevron (current issue) | CNN | |
| FLAME (current issue) | Federal Express | The Financial Times | Focus Features | |
| Ford Motor Company | Freddie Mac | GM | Grove Atlantic | |
| HBO | Harvard University Press | History Channel | Hoover Institution (current issue) | |
| MetLife | Microsoft | Mortage Bankers | Nuclear Energy Institute | |
| The New School | New York Times | Novartis | Palgrave Macmillan (current issue) | |
| Simon & Shuster | John Templeton Foundation (current issue) | University of Chicago Press | University Press of Kansas (current issue) | |
| U.S. Telecom | Visa (current issue) | The Wall Street Journal | Warner Brothers | |
| Warner Brothers Home Video | W.W. Norton | Wyeth Laboratories | Yale University Press (current issue) |
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:14 PM
Comments
Posted by: swj719AWG at October 28, 2007 10:13 PM (aFdZR)
As a Canuck, I wish there was more I could do.
Maybe TNR has some Canadian distribution too?
Our vets as well as the Canadian military serving in Afghanistan might even consider posting some missives directly to CanWest.
Posted by: Justacanuck at October 28, 2007 10:49 PM (hgxwr)
Posted by: keep dreaming at October 29, 2007 01:36 AM (GjNpc)
Scott Beauchamp doesn't matter.
Now you tell me. The torch and pitchfork I can store away in the barn, but what the heck am I going to do with this noose?
Posted by: nunaim at October 29, 2007 08:17 AM (czEZ3)
http://dcssec.blogspot.com/2007/10/tnr-beauchamp-nei.html
Posted by: Jim C at October 29, 2007 08:18 AM (4kUWR)
Foer might want to send a resume to his local shopping rag, just in case. Perhaps he can nail down that prestigious editorial slot in the tattoo parlor/strip joint section.
Posted by: Foer is Going Down at October 29, 2007 08:18 AM (NdG3x)
Posted by: holdfast at October 29, 2007 08:19 AM (eK7/0)
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at October 29, 2007 08:23 AM (/2PV1)
Seems to me that the threat could equally well be made that if TNR keeps on pushing NY Times advertising, I'll be boycotting Foer and Gang.
But the overall concept is probably not a bad idea.
Posted by: NahnCee at October 29, 2007 08:30 AM (u6Iyt)
They will believe any idiotic thing they are told.
Good luck prying advertisers away from such a gullible pack of twits.
Posted by: Phillep at October 29, 2007 09:08 AM (WE4Tw)
CanWest Global
Investor Relations
John Maguire, Chief Financial Officer
Email: jmaguire@canwest.com
Bad PR, boycotts, journalistic integrity or lack thereof, affect the corporate bottom line, stock prices, and by fiat, affect shareholders and investors!
Posted by: Tara at October 29, 2007 09:18 AM (Dqxeq)
Posted by: glenn at October 29, 2007 09:22 AM (zp+Xy)
As a Kansas University - Jawhawk grad., it cuts me far deeper. (U-press is KU/Lawrence, KS based)
I'll be sure to put in a Alumni complaint for their advertising in an elitist propaganda tool.
mr
PS - For those unaware, Wildcat is Kanas State University mascot.
Posted by: Michael Reed at October 29, 2007 10:00 AM (Bmk7w)
Perhaps you could indicate which titles the presses are plugging in TNR. (I'm not a TNR reader, so I can't honestly claim to be boycotting the mag. Although it's true that I haven't clicked through to a link there since Scotty and Fabricating Franklin slimed me and every other vet). The point of learning which titles have been promoted is this: we may be able to get some individual authors to distance themselves from Foer's anti-military 'tude.
I can go without buying books for a while. I have books piled up waiting to be read (doesn't everybody?). I have to replace a pickup truck soon but I think I could learn to live with a Toyota.
I note that that list of advertisers is probably a group that's a soft touch for anything Manhattanite and upscale. I wonder if they're not represented by only two or three ad agencies, who direct a percentage of their buys to various cheap low-circulation ads at outfits like TNR that claim upscale demographics.
Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien at October 29, 2007 10:05 AM (LkeNv)
Unless you cease advertising in The New Republic, I will find another right-wing think-tank to serve all my right-wing think-tank needs.
Sincerely,
Mike
P.S. Best to Rummy.
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2007 10:33 AM (z5Wgq)
the advertisers are there because they're interested in giving money to a liberal magazine and because they're interested in the readers.
in order for your plan to work, you're going to have to convince the advertisers they have more to lose from a bunch of pissed off right wingers than from than from the ridicule they'd face from TNR supporters for caving into a bunch of deranged right wingers.
you really think you can pull that off? I'm not going to go buy an Apple because Microsoft refuses to stop advertising in TNR, nor am I going to stop using fedex. Pressure campaigns come, they go, boycotts come and go, but in the end, supporters of left wing causes keep on supporting.
and even if you were to get some advertisers to pull out, no self-respecting magazine (which, in their eyes if not yours, they are) will ever admit to making editorial decisions with an eye to the ad side of the business. if anything, this campaign will make it even more unlikely that the editorial side will ever admit they're wrong.
but go ahead... at least if you've got nothing better to do with your time.
Posted by: steve sturm at October 29, 2007 11:17 AM (sWhRW)
Posted by: TallDave at October 29, 2007 12:07 PM (oyQH2)
...I call it RCD, a reading comprehension deficiency.
Posted by: everydayjoe at October 29, 2007 12:15 PM (/c1gr)
******************
Dear Mr. McGuire,
I'm writing to ask you to take a close look at the controversy surrounding
the publication of stories by Scott Thomas Beauchamp at The New Republic, a
magazine which your company owns.
It seems to me that the magazine is being poorly managed at present. Its
editorial slant doesn't matter to me-- I don't buy it anyway, as its
collectivist sensibilities appall me, libertarian that I am. What bothers
me is the poor example its present management sets for the opinion-magazine
industry as a whole-- that one can print lies, and those lies having been
exposed, one can stonewall the public indefinitely without consequences to
the pay, privileges, or continued employment of those responsible for the
publication of those lies, witting or not.
I ask that your company take whatever steps it deems appropriate to prevent
such a ridiculous situation from happening at The New Republic again.
Wyeth Laboratories is an advertiser in The New Republic. In my capacity as
a small shareholder in Wyeth, I will write to Wyeth's management, asking
them to cease advertising in The New Republic if the Beauchamp controversy
is not resolved soon.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Amos Hale Adams
(address and phone number deleted)
Posted by: Hale Adams at October 29, 2007 12:33 PM (lDAHj)
Posted by: cv at October 29, 2007 01:11 PM (GmamD)
Posted by: bcismar at October 29, 2007 01:37 PM (zhVlW)
(If you go to Yon's site, consider sending him some $$. He's one of the best.
Posted by: boatbuilder at October 29, 2007 01:38 PM (KKHCh)
Posted by: rishy at October 29, 2007 02:52 PM (eFoc8)
Were you born that dumb, or did you have to work at it?
By the way: check out Rasmussen. Guiliani 46% Phony Mrs. Clinton: 44%
And thats before there's an obvious GOP frontrunner. Even Freds at a statistical dead heat with her shrillness.
"27 percenters"
LOL
Posted by: TMF at October 29, 2007 03:04 PM (KTgUG)
That their author was married to one of their fact-checkers, so they didn’t think his stories needed to be checked?
That all three of his stories have key details that are either suspect, or proven false?
The have not reported that they have been unable to find the “burned woman” after more than three months. Not only have they not been able to find her, they haven’t been able to prove she ever existed.
Jason Zengerle,a TNR senior editor assigned to “re-report” Beauchamp’s claims, was told that the base in Kuwait considered this story an urban legend or myth, months ago. He has not released that.
Civilian contractors working at the base, such as William “Big Country” Coughlin who work at the base, flatly deny such a woman ever existed. TNR has not released that.
TNR has been unable to find a single person to corroborate on the record that children’s bones were found while digging at COP Ellis. They have not reported that fact.
Soldiers claim that MICH helmets used by our soldiers are too-form-fitting to wear a skull fragment as described. They have not reported that at all.
TNR has not reported that Doug Coffey, the BAE spokesman they interviewed about Bradley IFVs, states that it is very unlikely that a driver could do what Beauchamp claimed, and that when they interviewed him, they were careful not task him about the specific allegations.
TNR accused the military of stonewalling their FOIA request, when in fact they sent it to the wrong branch of the Army. Somehow, they for got to mention that, too.
Virtually the only fact we can be sure that the editors of The New Republic were honest about is that Scott Beauchamp is the author, and that at this point, they will say or do almost anything to keep their jobs.
Of course, they won’t admit the last one, either.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 29, 2007 03:18 PM (0BhZ5)
Clearly the military leaked to Drudge, TMF. I was born dumb, but now have a voice. You, however, are simply uninformed, which, if you choose, can be fixed.
Posted by: rishy at October 29, 2007 03:39 PM (eFoc8)
Posted by: TMF at October 29, 2007 03:45 PM (KTgUG)
Posted by: Karl at October 29, 2007 04:00 PM (1kFD4)
Hey man, you want some real controversy? Check it out new GI Joe Kerfuffel. ROTFLMAO
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2007/10/real-gi-joe.html
Posted by: Randy at October 29, 2007 04:14 PM (Le7aB)
Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at October 29, 2007 04:16 PM (mT12M)
Yes Rishy, and nuthin's changed there, has it? After all you are one of TNR's most valuable supporters - someone in their target demo: leftarded with a anti-miltary leaning:
Rishy:
"I am a public school teacher in.....Berkeley!"
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/user/Profile.aspx?UserID=2138
Posted by: Justacanuck at October 29, 2007 04:21 PM (hgxwr)
The burden of proof is on TNR, not the Army. I suggest you go back and read what Bob has been writing on this subject for the last couple of months before you try taking his arguments apart. It will keep you from looking like a fool.
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 29, 2007 04:22 PM (vMRk5)
rishy also seems to believe that the burden is on critics to prove the falsity of Beauchamp's claims when the burden was on TNR to reliably factcheck them. Instead, the transcripts show that it was TNR pressuring Beauchamp to confirm his stories, not the Army.
Posted by: Karl at October 29, 2007 04:22 PM (1kFD4)
Umm, I beg to differ there Fox. Nothing will keep Rishy from looking the fool that they are.
Posted by: bcismar at October 29, 2007 06:07 PM (zhVlW)
Posted by: John Ryan at October 29, 2007 06:12 PM (TcoRJ)
Note that those soldiers haven't been in Iraq since last year. One of them is talking about being shot at in Ramadi (which is described as capital of the "volatile" Al Anbar province. Anbar and Ramadi are now quiet...
Oh, when my medic brother-in-law went to Baghdad, he joined a unit that had been in Baghdad for 9 months and had yet to experience a single casualty due to enemy action. My sister, also a medic, said that when she was stationed out in the provinces the biggest problems where muscle strain and sports-related injuries. This is at the same time those guys in the article were serving.
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 29, 2007 06:57 PM (vMRk5)
Furthermore, I noticed you chose an article that interviews a soldier on active duty in Iraq from August 2005 to July 2006. Things have changed since then. There's a new approach that, indeed, seems to be working.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10292007/postopinion/editorials/al_qaedas_quagmire.htm
Posted by: James W, Hanau, Germany at October 29, 2007 07:17 PM (hsu/F)
Congratulations, the end result of all that hard work is apparent to anyone with two functioning brain cells.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 29, 2007 07:48 PM (ysloH)
Deleting and editing comments are tactics used by liberal blogs to eliminate debate. I can't get more than 3 or 4 comments in on most liberal blogs before I get blocked. I use no profanity nor insults. I think that is our chance to win some of the minds from the other side...even if it is just 1 out of a 100 chance.
Is Mike a known troll?
Posted by: James W, Hanau, Germany at October 29, 2007 07:51 PM (hsu/F)
Posted by: Ledger1 at October 29, 2007 07:53 PM (eFww9)
Posted by: James W, Hanau, Germany at October 29, 2007 08:25 PM (hsu/F)
Posted by: Jaxebadt at October 29, 2007 11:17 PM (MLOYS)
Posted by: Angry liberal at October 29, 2007 11:27 PM (ErmiW)
Posted by: shingles at October 30, 2007 12:14 AM (nzZyQ)
Glenn Beck is rather more vulnerable after telling South California that the reason their homes are burning is because they hate America. Orange County not known for its anti-wingnut politics but there you go.
The whole wingnut whine over the NRO's failure to renounce the story after the military ground a 'retraction' out of Beauchamp is ridiculous.
Posted by: PHB at October 30, 2007 07:14 AM (53XGg)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 30, 2007 07:53 AM (Lgw9b)
What about Barbara Boxer claiming that it's all Booooooooosh's fault because the National Guard is in Iraq, when there's only 3,000 California Guardsmen in Iraq, and over 18,000 still in California (1,500 activated to fight the fires already, 17,000 standing by) according to the Times?
What next? If you walk up to a soda machine, and it says "Use Exact Change," and you don't have the exact amount, is that the fault of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 30, 2007 08:28 AM (ysloH)
http://tinyurl.com/34xbnw
And, just for good measure, the actual quote:
Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, head of the National Guard Bureau, said Tuesday that the war in Iraq has not diminished the Guard's ability to assist fire-fighters.
Although the California guard currently has 3,000 soldiers deployed overseas, "We were very, very careful to not take capabilities away from the state of California that might be useful in fighting forest fires," Blum said.
About 1,500 California National Guard members have been activated to assist with the fires, and another 17,000 are available, if needed, officials said.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 30, 2007 08:31 AM (ysloH)
Posted by: funky chicken at October 30, 2007 11:20 AM (I+jPP)
Posted by: George at October 30, 2007 12:27 PM (ld6iH)
Military bloggers and bloggers from the right are calling for a boycott of marketers who advertise in The New Republic. Of course, the news here is that The New Republic still had advertisers!
Good point!
And then they post a link to the LA Times bilge:
UPDATE: Of course, there are two sides to every story.
I suspect the kids at AA haven't yet read the fisking the silly LAT article prompted.
Posted by: Justacanuck at October 30, 2007 12:33 PM (hgxwr)
Does anyone actually read "Fiskings" anymore? They're sooo 2003.
Posted by: scarshapedstar at October 30, 2007 02:26 PM (UrMkD)
Posted by: TCO at October 30, 2007 02:52 PM (UzjcV)
That doesn't appear to be the goal. Putting Franklin Foer out of a job is, and would be a good thing.
It's all about keeping them honest.
Posted by: Pablo at October 30, 2007 03:50 PM (yTndK)
When did this happen? I'm not suggesting it didn't happen, you understand. I have no doubt that a bunch of yahoos who can organize a lynch mob would probably have no trouble convening a kangaroo court, but really, who played the judge? Uncle Bob?
And you've just got to love the imagination it takes for sedentary men to describe sending an e-mail as something they "fired off."
Keep up the good work, ladies and gentlemen. You never fail to get a laugh.
Posted by: marc page at October 30, 2007 08:05 PM (zS2db)
The Army did all of the above internally. That's not a "kangaroo court," that's a legal option available to the Army under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. ch.47, passed by Congress 5 May 1950 and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman (D) on 31 May 1951.
Clearly, you think you know far more than you actually do know. If you wish to avoid being laughed at, you might engage in a little research before shooting your mouth off... and I don't mean just looking around DailyKOS and DemocraticUnderground.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 30, 2007 08:34 PM (ysloH)
Hoover Institute might be a tough one. I am a big fan of Dr. Thomas Sowell.
Posted by: Guy Montag at October 30, 2007 09:08 PM (AiJXe)
Posted by: marc page at October 30, 2007 09:38 PM (zS2db)
Posted by: marc page at October 30, 2007 09:40 PM (zS2db)
Well, darn. I'll contact Amazon.com and Ford. Ford appears to be seeking corporate suicide by tailoring their advertising message to the NY/SF liberal crowd these last few years. Fellas, those folks drive Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes, BMW, and Volvo. If you're gonna advertise with lib publications, at least do it under the Volvo or Range Rover name.
Um, not to put too fine a point on this, but ... are you even aware who owns Volvo? And, until they complete the sale, Range Rover?
Hint: the family still owns controlling interest in the firm. And they're not named Quandt.
Posted by: stickler at October 30, 2007 10:09 PM (nT/Ub)
Here you go.
The actual punishment is not named there, but the investigation and results are there, as well as several recommendations regarding what to do.
I found those documents with a Yahoo! search of less than 10 seconds... and it took a bit longer than usual because I deliberately avoided sites that you would claim had some bias.
Good day, sir. I said, good day.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 30, 2007 10:17 PM (ysloH)
" ... the investigation ... "
" ... several recommendations ... "
What happened to "found guilty, tried and punished" ?
Maybe if you put your back into it -- invest a little more than 10 seconds of your busy blogging today -- maybe, just maybe you can come up with something
Onus probandi, baby ...
[And, unlike your sarcastic sign-off, I really do hope you have a good day; a day untainted by phony outrage over inconsequential matters.]
Posted by: marc page at October 31, 2007 01:51 AM (zS2db)
This was an administrative punishment, not an article 32. He was investigated in two investigations, found guilty, and punished in both. That is beyond dispute.
Perhaps I was imprecise to use the word "tried," as I don't know the legal mechanisms used here, but I don't think so. At worst, it's splitting hairs.
Whoopie.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 06:08 AM (HcgFD)
The investigation and conclusions are clearly listed in that document. Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells can see that.
The concept that the United States Army, following an investigation of the sort detailed in that document, would sit on its hands and do nothing to punish the Soldier involved is so ludicrous as to be on a par with sightings of the Great Pumpkin.
Your little semantic games are just that... little, and games.
Good day, sir. I said, good day.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 31, 2007 08:29 AM (ysloH)
"Dear Mr. Currie,
Thank you very much for your interest in The New Republic . Your concerns were forwarded to me from John Maguire in our corporate offices.
While getting conclusive information on the Beauchamp file has been challenging, the editorial team posted an update on the website last Friday, October 26.
You will have a complete response soon.
From a business perspective, the Baghdad Diarist represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year. Yet, it has accounted for a hugely disproportioned amount of time in trying to deal with the response.
Please be assured that we share your interest in transparency and in clarifying TNR's position as soon as possible.
Once we publish the final findings of our investigation, we hope that your confidence in The New Republic will be fully restored.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Sheldon
Publisher
Elizabeth W. Sheldon
Publisher
The New Republic
1331 H Street NW, Ste. 700
Washington, DC 20005
esheldon@tnr.com
--------
Publishers and owners hate stuff which takes "a disproportionate amount of time".
So keep the pressure on!
Posted by: Jay Currie at October 31, 2007 12:14 PM (ZYnHZ)
Marc, when Foer finally resigns or is handed his walking papers, perhaps you could be there to ask him as he passes through the doors of TNR for the last time (and while he can still recall the specifics) just how inconsequential this matter is?
Listen carefully to his answer. You might learn something.
Posted by: Justacanuck at October 31, 2007 12:15 PM (hgxwr)
Posted by: bob at October 31, 2007 07:08 PM (JF2MH)
But then, it's probably better that you all keep yourselves occupied this way. No telling what kind of mischief you'd get up to out in the real world.
Take care, gentlemen. It's been a treat chatting with you.
Posted by: marc page at October 31, 2007 07:31 PM (zS2db)
I suspect that you inhabit a fantasy world. If you ever entered the real world, you'd probably need to change your pants after you recovered from your faint.
Nevertheless, I do wish you a good day. I said, good day, sir.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 31, 2007 07:42 PM (ysloH)
I wrote back to Ms. Sheldon - at somewhat lesser length than our host - suggesting that it was time for TNR to get down to being open and forthright about their having published fiction as fact and then, having been called on it, have stonewalled for three months.
I don't expect I will hear back from Ms. Sheldon which will be the hook I use to drop this back on Maguire's desk with copies to David and Leonard Asper and the various members of the CanWest Board.
I will also be taking a look at when the CanWest AGM is being held and may buy a share or two and have a bit of fun during question time.
The point being to make the disgrace of the TNR's Editors' conduct unpleasant for a bunch of people who cannot imagine why any sane business person would buy such a magazine other than as a "vanity purchase". Given that the CanWest "A" shares have lost nearly 50% of their value in 2007, this is the sort of issue which can cause significant pain all the way to the top.
Foer is a deadman walking; it is now only a question of whether he falls on his own sword or has it driven in to the hilt by Ms. Sheldon on orders from Mr. Maguire at the request of the Aspers.
Posted by: Jay Currie at November 01, 2007 12:35 AM (ZYnHZ)
I was able to navigate to the new customer service form, but it now requires that you login and enter a recent order number before you can submit.
Luckily, I just bought a Bunn coffee maker 2 weeks ago, so I had that order number recorded in my amazon.com account.
I suppose proving that you actually _are_ an amazon customer will give the request more weight than otherwise.
Posted by: monsewage x at November 02, 2007 05:22 AM (xjceM)
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0178 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0067 seconds, 79 records returned.
Page size 55 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.