I’m getting emails left and right about this. TNR, publisher of Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s fabrications, standing by him for months, says they can no longer stand by them.
In retrospect, we never should have put Beauchamp in this situation. He was a young soldier in a war zone, an untried writer without journalistic training. We published his accounts of sensitive events while granting him the shield of anonymity–which, in the wrong hands, can become license to exaggerate, if not fabricate.
When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.
This is actually only a taste, with the full report being 14 pages and around 10,000 words. All of the fodder to say: He’s full of crap.
Interesting note by Allah. The date for this report is December 10, with the only way to access it being a direct url.
More: Bryan (or AP?) points to this on page 10:
But we also found some reason to doubt Beauchamp’s reliability: In 2006, he had written a personal blog, Sir Real Scott Thomas, which we only discovered after the controversy erupted. He appeared an angst-ridden young man prone to paroxysms: “I shoot, move, communicate, and kill … the deaths that I inflict secure the riches of the empire.” With his excited prose and tendency toward overstatement, his blog did not inspire journalistic confidence. We had good reasons never to assign Beauchamp another piece.
I’ll probably have more in a bit.