For several weeks now, questions have been raised about Scott Beauchamp’s Baghdad Diarist “Shock Troops.” While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas, we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy. We at The New Republic take these concerns extremely seriously. This is why we have sought to re-report the story, in the process speaking with five soldiers in Beauchamp’s company who substantiate the events described in Beauchamp’s essay.
Yet, these “soldiers”, remain nameless. However, soldiers on Beauchamp’s very base that debate his stories, are more than willing to go on the record as saying they’re false. “People with idealogical agendas”? The Associated Press, The Washington Post and other news outlets have received confirmations from the military that the stories are false.
Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army. Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp’s article and has found it to be false, it has refused our–and others’–requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What’s more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants “to protect his privacy.”
But then they say:
Here’s what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, “It’s pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by.” In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp–or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.
So, are they in contact with him or not? First they claim they can’t contact him, but later they say they’ve been contacted by him and have been told he was “pressured” into signing statements. They also say he still “insists that he has not recanted them”. Bryan writes:
That “pressure” was likely the knowledge that he could get slapped with judicial punishment for lying to investigators, who had likely already found out from Beauchamp’s mates or from the lack of a stratified mass grave as he described that his reports were made up.
Oh, but it gets better:
Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches.
“Aside from one key detail”? You mean aside from one fact that holds part of his accounts together? Remember the woman with the melted face he claimed he joked about and he was sitting at the table, giving TNR details as he saw them? Turns out he now says it happened in Kuwait, and he wasn’t actually there yet. Evidence has yet to be found that the lady even exists.
TNR continues to stand by their man. Despite soldiers who actually drive the vehicles Beauchamp talks about, willing to go on camera and deny it’s possible to suddenly swerve. Despite the Head of Communications for the company that manufactures the Bradley IFV saying he was only asked “vague questions by TNR” and was not provided the text of Beauchamp’s stories:
The driver’s vision, even if sitting in an open hatch is severely restricted along the sides. He sits forward on the left side of the vehicle. His vision is significantly impaired along the right side of the vehicle which makes the account to “suddenly swerve to the right” and actually catch an animal suspect. If you were to attempt the same feat in your car, it would be very difficult and you have the benefit of side mirrors.
Despite soldiers and higher officers on his own base discrediting his stories. Despite the revelation by Beauchamp that he now claims the woman was in Kuwait and he wasn’t there. Despite the fact that Iraqi police aren’t the only ones with access to Glocks, despite what Beauchamp said.
Despite a staff writer at Beauchamp’s wife’s former paper saying TNR didn’t do its research. Despite Bob Steele, the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values at The Poynter Institute school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla. saying:
“Anonymity allows an individual to make accusations against others with impunity,” Steele said. “In this case, the anonymous diarist was accusing other soldiers of various levels of wrongdoing that were, at the least, moral failures, if not violations of military conduct. The anonymity further allows the writer to sidestep essential accountability that would exist, were he identified.”
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.
“If they were doing any kind of fact-checking, with multiple sources, that error _ or potential deception _ would have emerged,” Steele said.
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.
That was reported in the Liberal-slanted Washington Post. The questioning has been reported by the Liberal-slanted Associated Press, too. Despite Melissa McEwan of Liberal blog Shakespeare’s sister noting that the detail Beauchamp admits to messing up is a big deal, and saying he’s lying about numerous parts of his stories.
Despite all of that, they continue to stand by him.
by Stephan Tawney on Fri, Aug 10, 2007