Cathy Young calls the Beauchamp affair “a proverbial tempest in a teapot,” and argues that:
conservative bloggers aren’t covering themselves in glory either when they stridenly insist that TNR gave Beauchamp a platform in a nefarious plot to smear and slander the troops. TNR is not some far-left rag that revels in spitting on American soldiers; it is a centrist magazine that initially supported the war in Iraq. Indeed, while I think the story of the boy who had his tongue cut out raises further doubts about Beauchamp’s credibility, it also points to the aburdity of claims that TNR editors were eager to publish Beauchamp because his writings put U.S. troops in Iraq in a bad light. (Unless, of course, one wants to claim that TNR and Beauchamp cleverly conspired to ensure that his first diarist piece focused on atrocity by the insurgents in order to avert suspicion of anti-Americanism — which is probably not too paranoid for a few websites.) I think Beauchamp wanted to write gritty, vivid, human-interest-rich accounts of the horrors of war, and TNR wanted to publish them.
Perhaps. But such a reading is, at best, generous.
Consider: is it really “paranoid” to suggest that a writer working to establish credibility would be careful to describe the barbarism of “both sides” (and aren’t we always told that what separates “us” from “them” is that we do not behave like them, making the subsequent barbarism of the American troops reported in Beauchamp’s follow-up pieces all the more pointedly ironic)?
In fact, isn’t it that juxtaposition itself that gives the pieces their pointedness and, to some, their poignancy?
The idea that war turns us into what we are fighting is the “literary” conceit being serviced by Beauchamp’s collection of essays — and in the aggregate, his pieces are, in my reading, intended to supply this practiced layer to the anti-war narrative embraced both by Foer and (if we can believe his other writings, or view his political affiliations as “significant” with respect to his literary output) Beauchamp.
Young might dismiss such an interpretation as “paranoid,” but in doing so, she infantalizes Beauchamp as a writer. He juggled (as yet unverified) anecdotes in the service of a group of pieces with a particular theme — that combat coarsens and dehumanizes, and blurs the line between “us” and “them” (a tried and true trope of anti-war literature) — and I find it unlikely that someone who knew enough about story telling to alter contexts, embellish details, and affect a particular tone (one common to literature of this ilk, as Dr Barnes was quick to point out) would not recognize the importance of establishing the trust of his perceived audience.
From the perspective of the narratives themselves, the stated complicity of “Scott Thomas” in the atrocities — forgivable, ironically (but not unintentionally, I don’t think), only as the reader embraces Beauchamp’s larger theme that combat dehumanizes the individual and levels the moral playing field, effectively rendering “Scott Thomas” a victim to his own situatedness (albeit one with the wherewithal to recognize his own coarsening, else how to account for the fact of these pieces themselves?) — is what garners him this trust. Beauchamp does not depict “Scott Thomas” as a whistle blower, but rather chooses to make him a matter-of-fact chronicler of what combat yields. He is the narrator-as-object-lesson — and his anecdotes themselves are meant only to reinforce what Beauchamp believed (I’m guessing) was the “literary” strength of his pieces, namely, a tone that “performs” the dehumanization that lies at the heart of his thesis.
From a literary perspective, his failures were in the misuse of detail that betrayed the veracity of the anecdotes themselves.
Ethically, however, whether or not you condemn Beauchamp will depend upon whether or not you believe that the key error in his accounts — the “dehumanization” apparently began prior to combat in Kuwait, and was acted out by the very character who would later posit the thesis he seemed determined to will into being — was the result of a failed memory or of a literary sensibility hoping to manipulate an audience.
Dismissing one choice as “paranoid” is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand, given that the abundance of material we can now bring to bear on our interpretation makes the “paranoid” choice not only plausible, but (in my estimation) likely.
****
Previous posts here and here.
Funnny how the talking points went from it’s all true, to it’s too close, to call to it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not.
I don’t care whether TNR is centrist, leftist or rightist, or what its prior editor might have thought about the Iraq War. The fact is that they have permitted themselves, once again, to be hornswaggled by a shyster with an agenda because it plays to the prejudices of the editors. They have exhibited terrible judgment, and apparently have no immediate plans to exhibit any better.
Better to be known as a murderer than a liar, for no one listens to the wind.
TW: Hindenburg weld
I’m deathly tired of the Left continually changing the definition of truth. They’re changing it slowly with every Scott Thomas fable they tell–just the way they keep slowly chipping away at other principles in hopes that, if they win enough samll battles, they can win the war. Look at the way they’re eroding the 2nd Amendment. By belittling their opponents, they hope to embarrass them into silence. Too bad, shitheads, some of us refuse to bite.
Everything Jeff writes can be boiled down into two words: truth matters. There are no little battles in this war; the ramifications for the future are too important.
It’s a commonplace that writers should write about what they know. It’s plain that STB doesn’t know his ass from a tea cup when it comes to soldiers on the ground today in Iraq. His command of the most basic details is laughably inept. He started with a pose–and a cliched one at that–the war weary young man. STB never earned his experience–he made it up, and it shows.
That TNR was so easily gulled is probably evidence that they got what they were looking for. That they have since behaved so incompetently and dishonestly is evidence of something worse.
We are the problem in Iraq and it’s the children who are paying for it.
And doesn’t “a literary sensiblity hoping to manipulate an audience.” apply to every journalist in the world. Isn’t the whole profession designed to manipulate opinion, all the while pretending that it doesn’t? Isn’t the field’s greatest accomplishment convincing so many that it’s even attempting to be objective?
Perhaps I’ve fallen victim to the cynicism of the Left, but I thought the anecdote about the boy getting his tongue cut out was the author’s clumsy way of saying that even if some people like us, our presence is still going to cause them to suffer.
Everyone knows that there have been war crimes in Iraq, things much worse than wearing baby skulls under Kevlar. But these are genuine criminals who eventually get caught and punished. Americans understand criminals, and they understand that some bad folks leak through. But we want to believe in the humanity of our soldiers generally.
What Beachamp was trying to do was to claim that he and his fellows were being dehumanized through their very presence in Iraq. That this was somehow our fault for placing them there. He shat on of his battle buddies by claiming for himself an unearned world weariness, that “been in the shit†thousand yard stare, a moral degradation that the more sensitive among us were expected to believe was increasingly general – or else what was the point?
But then there were those inconsistencies, the “not quite rights” that experienced people picked up on, leading to the revelation that Beauchamp somehow got dehumanized on the airplane from Germany to Kuwait.
But why would he write those things before seeing combat? Why would TNR see fit publish to publish them? Here’s why: Having initially committed – honorably – not to repeat the excesses of the Vietnam era anti-war left by smearing the reputation of those sent forward to fight it, today’s anti-war factions have finally realized that this is a losing strategy: It’s hard to energize the lumpen masses against the war when only 1% of them have any skin in the game and they’re all volunteers.
At first the anti-war folks were content to label soldiers as deluded “low class victims,†people without any life skills, people who “got stuck in Iraq.†But articulate, motivated middle American veterans refused such a label and it frankly didn’t sell. So what are we left with, what fable can an anti-war faction weave to withdraw popular support from the deployed forces, however pseudo-sympathetically? That we are creating a class of monsters merely by having them there. After all, it must be true, everyone knows it’s true – all they needed was a diarist.
And so one was found. Close at hand as it turns out.
How very fortunate for them.
But when they hear about it from the military, like with Abu Ghraib and Mahmoudiya, well…that doesn’t really count. Not tryuthy enough, and the prosecution of their “victims” throws the storyline off.
they prefer things like STB and the notion that Pat Tillman was murdered.
lex thanks — we can’t let the LMSM “Oliver Stone” our heroes into becoming Platoon stereotypes!
Not merely murdered, executed. For the simple crime of not being slavishly enough devoted to Bushitler’s “imminent threat” lie.
Let’s face it: progg’ism is just a new and different kind of LARPing.
I read Cathy Young’s blog entry, and what I took away was:
1. She doesn’t believe the anecdotes are accurate;
2. She (very) gently rebukes TNR for running them and the Left for uncritically defending them;
3. She thinks that the only reasonable inference about the motivations involved are that “…Beauchamp wanted to write gritty, vivid, human-interest-rich accounts of the horrors of war, and TNR wanted to publish them.”
To suspect any kind of ulterior ideological agenda on the part of docrinaire liberal Beauchamp and “new anti-war editorial direction” editor Foer is just paranoia.
Considering the way that the Left brands everyone they disagree with, and everyone who says anything they don’t want to hear as a “liar,” it is just a little too rich that she wants us to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I would gladly do it, too, except that it is a hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that a liberal opinion journal published fables that just happened to support their own political narrative just because they took a sudden interest in publishing gritty fiction.
Thank Bog I’m a card-carrying cynic (Amalgamated Cynics and Camedians. Local 1508) – I don’t have to pretend to be shocked when liberal rags act like liberal rags.
Aldo,
Good point, but I’m leaning more toward the lazy and incompetent explanation for the original publication of STB’s nonsense. It fit with Foer’s new editorial direction, so he ran with it.
I’ve got a much darker view of what looks to me now like a very lame cover up. Foer’s trying to save his ass, and he has some buddies like Andrew Sullivan who are circling the wagons hoping that the blogs lose interest. They won’t, and the Sullivans of the world will bail and leave Foer hanging. Craven a holes all.
Foer should have fessed up two weeks ago.
Dad,
I concede that nepotism was the most likely reason for these turds making their way into print, rather than any sort of elaborate conspiracy to manipulate the debate over the war. Nonetheless, it was dishonest of TNR to let readers believe that these were just diaries of the typical day to day life of some random soldier in Iraq, when they knew, or should have known, that the author was someone from their own circle who had an ideological axe to grind.
It is the same type of dishonesty that we saw from Joe Wilson when he wrote his NYT essay about yellowcake, and from Greenwald’s sock puppets when they defended his positions.
It would seem laughably, simply, but now irretrievably, easy to have said, “We got snookered. Our bad. We’ll do better next time.”
When pressed to the wall, the NYT says something like that, even though they have their fingers crossed when they talk about doing better next time.
You think Foer must be wondering why he missed that opportunity to be shut of this hassle?
All gone. No problem. Couple of laughs. No biggy.
Instead….
I can believe that Foer didn’t know that the stories were fictional. I also can believe that Beauchamp can no longer tell the difference between “subjective” and “fictional.”
The idea that war turns us into what we are fighting is the “literary†conceit
Because that’s what always happens, right? In the late 1700s, we fought Monarchists, won, and the first thing we did was sit down and set up a Monarchy. We had originally planned to set up a democratic republic, but after fighting the British, we became so damned British we couldn’t help ourselves. Which explains why we still include the “u” in “colour” and refer to a garbage can as a “dustbin.”
They always say that it’s wrong to assume that “the end justifies the means,” but that’s not entirely true: Isn’t there a difference between people who fight to create or preserve liberty and those who fight to impose or preserve tyranny? Isn’t there a difference between the bully and they guy who pounds on bullies?
Boy, they complain that our positions lack nuance, but it’s only because the nuance we perceive is just noise to them. It’s not the end of the world, but you can sure see it from here.
TW: blind self. Jeff, make it stop!
This is the same Cathy Young who asked:
And it’s the same Cathy Young who would find it “repugnant” if an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials was rooting for the US to lose in Iraq.
But she could not help but embrace the canard promulgated by Andrew Sullivan and his ilk:
Given the virtual length and breadth of the blogospher, I would not think that Sullivan or Young would be reduced to speculating to impute bad motives to such people; they could be searched out and linked.
There is, of course, a competing hypothesis, which is that people who support the invasion of Iraq acknowledge that the situation is precarious, that soldiers sometimes not only misbehave but commit outright crimes, yet do not want to be fed bogus stories about either, or have our troops smeared by the antiwar crowd (as Vietnam vets were smeared by the Winter Soldier stories that were untimely debunked in the 1970s). People who want to see a freer world and who see negligent or malicious journalism as distinctly unhelpful in a conflicty with a large component of information warfare. And Young needn’t join in speculation about that hypothesis, as plenty of those people hang out at this site.
One irony of this affair is that many conservative bloggers make it sound as if the reputation of American troops in Iraq would indeed be compromised if Beauchamp’s account were corroborated.
Well no, in fact, the effect of Beauchamp’s stories is likely to be a HUGE help in military recruitment. “That is how war works: It degrades every part of you, and your sense of humor is no exception.” Sign me up!!!
Every reaction to this story is narcissistic–it’s a story about who you are, not about the military or media–but especially Young’s. Shocker. Her only opinion about anything is that it’s better than yours.
She’ll spin herself in half Tasmanian Deviling up to that high middle ground above us all, no matter what the story is, or whether such a middle even exists. It doesn’t in this case, so, for example (and there are a few in the piece), she invents a paranoid right-narrative for “some websites,” just so she can majesterially disdain it.
And make Jeff et al deny it, begging her to find them reasonable; we shouldn’t neglect that.
TNR is not some far-left rag that revels in spitting on American soldiers;
…unless the Beauchamp story is bullshit, and TNR’s denials of it bullshitness have themselves been bullshit, and TNR didn’t care whether it was bullshit or not when it was published, and they don’t much care now either…
it is a centrist magazine that initially supported the war in Iraq.
…which matters unless it isn’t now, and it doesn’t now, which it isn’t, and it doesn’t.
But these are facts and obsevations about the world, not “centrist” poses in Cathy’s mirror, so they don’t count.
And this anti-soldier ad hom–especially because of who’s saying it–is particularly offensive:
Now, I know that life in a war zone does strange things to people.
No you fucking don’t. Check that mirror. You’re an old fat lady who “knows” that from watching TV. On the other hand, you’re an old fat lady who “knows” that from the movies. But suddenly I can see the appeal of disdainful centrism.
What an unbelievable asshole.
(also works as signature)
I’m shocked that a journalist finds a made up story by another “journalist” writing in a journal that” TNR is not some far-left rag that revels in spitting on American soldiers;” no big deal. Cathy Young should write for UNreason. Actually I think the cathys and mad andys should use the 48 hour rule in writing on any topic. Your “expert analysis” is so much just anal.
1852 varied
Well, I happen to think quite highly of Cathy, though I think she’s off the mark here — just as I think she was off the mark in her columns on torture. But she is more often than not on her target with her analysis.
She also happens to be quite bright and, in my experience, eminently fair. I think some of the more ugly comments about her being made here are not only off base, but unnecessary.
That being said, there is an argument to be made that Young is taking a position that to find disdain across the political spectrum in order that her position may tower over it like a statue to reason and equanimity.
Whether or not her opinions are colored by journalistic insiderism (which, you’ll recall, was my response to Jonah Goldberg’s defense of Foer) is something only she knows for certain — though again, one can certainly make that argument, and I’d listen.
I agree with Jeff’s, er…call for civility? Coarsened soldier tho’ I am, I still very much more comfortable with good manners all around.
That said, I do find C. Young’s posture a bit absurd. Especially
“There are also far too many on the right who do not want to hear, or to accept, any bad news about the conduct or the morale of American troops.”
You want to hear that stuff, listen to us who are inside the Great Dehumanizing Beast. You want to assume someone who has slid off the rails of reality like Andrew Sullivan is occupying some sort of sensible middle ground – well, I fear there is little I can do to help. When you are always looking for the bad, awful, ungood and sour, it may just predispose you to, if you cannot find it, simply suppose it is there.
I still think you give her a bit of a pass in letting her characterize Beauchamp’s earlier work as some sort of expose of insurgent atrocities. (Consider: is it really “paranoid†to suggest that a writer working to establish credibility would be careful to describe the barbarism of “both sides ) I don’t have the full text of the earlier work, but my sense is that Zelda at #8 and that happyfeet guy at #6 are not being unduly cynical.
happyfeet, the fact that we are in Iraq is a symptomn of the problem. The problem is not us or the USA, the problem is a culture and place where doing that to a kid is considered acceptable by certain political elements, and by extrapolation, acceptable to doing that to whole populations. Some will do that wearing a robe and turban, some will do that in a business suit, others in a natty uniform. It is the same old song, sung by a different guy in a different accent, but still an authoritarian version of “Henry VIII”.
TW: Carew changing. Hmm. Carew is an old family name on my mom’s side.
I think it works both ways, happyfeet. I think we’re meant to juxtapose the actions of the insurgents with those of our troops. It’s possible that Beauchamp took the easy route of “showing” that the very fact of our being in Iraq is a danger to Iraqis, but I’m not sure such an observation (it doesn’t show badly on us, I don’t think) quite carries the gravitas Beauchamp appears to aspire to.
The only Carew I had ever heard of was that sweet swinging switch hitter, Rod Carew, who made a career of hitting singles long before Tony Gwynn perfected it.
Journalistic insiderism… it’s not an argument it’s simply ture. From JPod who worked frantically to shut down Ace’s part of the investigation into all this, to Allah who is working the “too close to call” angle to Rich Lowry who belives that sometimes the media is right (Especially when they are wrong about a) the number of dead people b) how they died c) who killed them and d) the destruction of the Mosques in question.)
The simple fact is that journailists, every single one of them whether they are nice and smart or dumb as a bunch of rocks and vicious, have a vested interest in protecting the guild’s appearaince of objectivity. Which is why we still don’t know where Dan Rather got his bogus TANG documents ( and never will) which is why no journalist will ever ask Tim Russert exactly why he filed a false affadavit with the court in the Libby case (thanks Byron), which is why we’ll never know exaclty how many Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hizbullah stringers work for the BBC and the AP and Rueters.
Because allowing us to know that they have a vested interest in the out come of the matters they cover will destroy that patina of objectivity and ruin the one thing they have to sell. The ability to influence events by appearing disinterested and objective.
I could run down the specifics…photogate, the Libby trial, the FISA coverage, Helen Thomas, David Gregory, Keith Olberman, The Abu Grahib coverage, The latest cover-up of the Black Muslim slaying of the journalist out west, The cover up of Al Qaeda atrocities found by Yon ( which some bloggers, connected to the MSM, will tell you privately didn’t really happen), the non coverage of Saddam’s atrocities, Rathergate, Jamilgate, Qana, the TNR Haditha, the differences in the coverage of Democratic and Republican sexual escapades, the anonynous journalists who have talked with Tom Gross, and with IP and with Ace of Spades and on and on. But there is no point.
They won’t listen becuase they have decided ( every single one of them) that their ability to make a lving ( as advertising shills who no one realizes are advertising shills) trumps every thing. Especially the truth and all that bilge about ethics they constantly spout.
As the man said, “That’s just the way it is.”
The battle lines are drawn. If you have any regard at all for the truth then journalism must be put out of business. they realize it, which is why they close rasnks after every ethical disaster now, like Cathy here.
The sad thing is that bloggers, who let their friends in the media give them confidential hush-hush insider journo information, and then knowingly hide it, truth be damned…don’t.
lex; that was very eloquent. Thank you.
Bienart was for the Iraqi campaign; Foer is against it. Small surprise that an editorial change results in stories that appeal to the editor’s beliefs. Who wants to actively tick off the boss?
JD: Other than Rod, the only Carews that I have heard of would be a great-uncle and a great-great-uncle. On the Martindale side. My brothers and I are trying to piece together more of the family background.
Mikey NTH – Start at Wink Martindale, and work backwards. LOL.
Corvan – Well said. Indeed.
And if you don’t believe me read this. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/236191.php. Then go read the links from there. We have now reached the point that fiction is good. Truth is bad. The question is will all of the people who claim to have friends in the journlaist-fabulist community continue to play along. Will you?
JD: (LOL!) Wink isn’t any relation, so far as I have heard. But a John(?) Martindale, a great-great-great-grandfather was an engineer who helped build the first Welland Canal. And with that and two bucks I can get a cup of coffee at Beaners tomorrow.
;)
Mikey NTH – Beaners? RACIST!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
Major John is so coarsened that he left a seried of long, jagged scratches on the other side of my CRT. That’s just the text version of him, mind you.
Dude: you owe me for a new flatscreen.
I have been hornswaggled by a shyster with an agenda because he played to my prejudices.
The honorable thing to do is to print a retraction as soon as the error is verified:
False Alarm
Sorry, JD, but that is the chains’ name. Let’s say that they don’t roast the coffee beans to ash before serivng it to you. Unlike a certain chain named after a celestial game animal (or character on a 1970’s sci-fi tv show).
Mikey NTH – I know, but that one was like a slider from Mark Prior that never breaks, it required one to take a swing at it.
“Coarsened soldier tho’ I am, I still very much more comfortable with good manners all around”
Funny you should mention that. I have been at events attended by both soldiers are professors of literature, and the soldiers were civil, courteous, dignified. A depressing number of the academics were prone to gratuitous nastiness.
A sense of proper decorum is not a trait commonly found on the Left, and I no longer give a shit if that is an over-generalization.
“…the anti-war narrative embraced both by Foer and…Beauchamp.”
An email today from TNR gives most prominent placement (subject line) to “An American Suicide, What war did to Jeffrey Lucey.”
The title of another article, “Democrats and Militarists” is by its choice of words is guaranteed to raise the hackles of more than a few decent people.
Pvt. For Life Scott Beauchamp recants.
Not that it will matter to the Left.
While TNR vacations for 3-weeks, so there’s no music for them to face, here, at all; it seems that BRAD THOR is the author, in fiction, of a woman whose face was destroyed by an IED. Not in IRAK. Not in Kuwait. IN FICTION.
The army has also put BeauCHUMP’S entire platoon under oath. And, investigators went out to discover the truth. None of the people who are in this platoon verified any piece of “Scott Thomas’ story.”
What’s next? I’ll guess that Elsbeth, like Mary Mapes, will be fired. She’s not only supposedly BeauCHUMP’s wife; where they met in journalism school, in Missouri. She’s also the “head fact-checker” at TNR. She might as well kiss her job goodbye.
No, I never expect TNR to give a damn. They’re only concern is not to lose circulation; and the people who read that rag lean to the left, anyway.
On the other hand? I doubt Franklin Foer will be taking Elsbeth to lunch, any time soon. And, behind the scenes, he’s spewing venom.
Dan Rather, meanwhile, no longer needs to lunch, alone.
I keep thinking I’ll just stumble on these earlier pieces, but so far just snippets is what I’ve found, so I can’t really argue this.
What Cathy said that bugs at me is this part:
I think she attempts to minimize the propaganda to a question of putting troops “in a bad light.” Here’s one clue I’ve found: If you go to TNR’s site (currently featuring “The effects of the Iraq war on the mental health of American soldiers“), and search on “Scott Thomas”, you’ll see in the results that the “War Bonds” “Diarist” was originally titled “My horrifying tour of duty in Iraq.
Reducing an evaluation of the three Diarist pieces to “Putting the troops in a bad light” is putting way too fine a point on it. But Beauchamp is in no way shape or form responsible for the publication of these pieces – Frankie is, and Frankie’s agenda is wholly independent of “the gravitas Beauchamp appears to aspire to.”
Each of Beauchamp’s pieces reflects an independent editorial decision of Frankie’s. Jumping in way over my head I would submit that at minimum, an evaluation of editorial intent would have to account for the context of Beauchamp’s work in each issue, as well as an evaluation of whether Beauchamp’s pieces complement or extend other themes presented in the magazine. Maybe we could start with The effects of the Iraq war on the mental health of American soldiers.
Mikey – I think you took me wrong at #6 – what I wanted to suggest there was pretty much what Zelda said at #8, but I was in a gruesome teleconference thingy at the time and didn’t use as many words as I should have.
Corvan – You’re just so cool. I’ll be so pissed if you don’t sign my yearbook.
Ok so I wrote all that before I saw #42. This stupid Internet needs a pause button. But I’ll still maintain that it’s Frankie that should be held accountable. Beauchamp loserness just throws into relief how Frankie’s agenda clouded his judgement. And also, Frankie has a freaking ginormous forehead. Like Charlie Brown ginormous. It just needed to be said is all even if that is not an appropriate observation because he is not a respectable or honest person and therefore it’s ok if everyone laughs and points at his freakishly large forehead even if it turns out he had some weird hydroencephawhatever as a kid which I would not doubt because it’s so freakishly huge.
What a dichotomy. On the day that there are reports the Faux-champ stated under oath to the military that he made up the stories, rather than run with that, TNR is pushing the suicide of a Marine vet, which dovetails nicely with their editorial direction in the Faux-champ case, ie. the effects of war on the people involved.
Slart, I’d love to send you a flat screen. However, flat screens and I mix like Allahpundit and i-phones…all want, and no have.
TW: dying areas. Hey, not on my lawn!
I think Frankie’s ginormous forehead can double as a flatscreen.
Major John – With prior college and only being an E-2, isn’t it more likely than not that Beauchamp had some experience with the Article 15 process? I would bet dimes to dollars that he had some rank taken prior to this incident.
TNR is “Centrist”? That’s news to me. TNR may not be far left, but they are left.
“Conservative bloggers make a bit of a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq.” – Frankie Foer
I wonder if the Weekly Standard’s Goldfarb will wear Foer’s scalp around under his hat all day long tomorrow?
He’d have to have the scalp altered.
Ok so I wrote all that before I saw #42. This stupid Internet needs a pause button.
1. Your #44 still stands.
2. The most dangerous part of an automobile is the nut behind the wheel.
Isn’t it kind of odd that TNR didn’t bring all of Beauchamp’s work out from behind the paywall when this thing started?
happyfeet – That is not at all surprising. They knew they had not fact checked it, and showing the entirety of the piece would make that all the more obvious.
Will they come back from their “vacation” to address this issue?
Right JD, I guess it is a dead giveaway. But I’m a little stumped why no one, from what I’ve seen, liberated this stuff. That’s just weird, in retrospect. I bet they pull the pieces and disavow the whole thing. I’ll be curious to see Cathy Young’s reaction if Beauchamp’s recantation is acknowledged and TNR still holds the articles as representative of the magazine’s journalism.
[…] update: Is Beauchamp both a fabulist AND a plagiarist? Posted by Jeff G. @ 8:20 pm | Trackback Share […]
This will not effect their standing on the Left one single iota. Go read the comment threads over at their site. There are still people making up some really difficult defenses to understand.
At the risk of not being ironic enough (and I know, all you regular commentators are spoiled to death by him), I would just like to say that your writing, Jeff, is just spectacular. Consistently good, and in this case, near sublime analysis.
Now don’t get mad you fellow commenters. Quite a few of you are quite excellent as well (hence, your spoiledness), when you are not trying to outbid each other with Turing words.
I still wonder what the Canadians in the mothership are thinking about all this. Salon already owns the niche TNR apparently is coveting, and with a lot less overhead.
If I were Franklin Foer, and if I were honest and rational, I would have asked his wife, “Hey, Elspeth! Your husband is describing himself in this report as a contemptible, sociopathic asshole. What the fuck? You married this sick bastard just a few months ago. Were you crazy? Are you a masochist? Are you as big an asshole as he is? Or is he bullshitting us, and you’re covering for him?
Maybe his wife is one of the fact-checkers at TNR.
“Personnel is policy.”
TNR obviously knew what Beauchamp was going to write before he did, given the nature of his oeuvre. Of the tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq, they just happened across this guy? I’ve long been a fan of Cathy Young and, like Jeff, I’m put off by some of the uncharitable accusations and characterizations here. But she’s being disingenuous here – TNR picked STB for a reason, and it wasn’t because of his purple prose.
TW: SOCIETY grotesque. Is Beauchamp writing these damned things?
It shuld have been obvious from the beginning, given that in Beauchamp’s quest to thoroughly pare the dignity, compassion and humanity from our military forces, he consciously employed the entire available panoply of literary devices. In his story, wht were their targets of mistreatment? 1)|A woman, the 2)remains of dead 3)children, and 4)dogs. If one is attempting to portray soldiers as savages lacking all vestiges of conscience or decency, one cannot cover a condemnatory spectrum more thoroughly than that. It was too pat, too comprehensive and complete an indictment, too much of a recognizably fictive construction, to have even passed a first-glance smell test by any but the most willfully naive reader, desperately thirsting for confirmation of their personal prejudices, and self-blinded by their hope that their private, Ugly-American, US-soldiers-as-unfeeling-imperialist-scum narrative was receiving independent corroboration. But it was never even slightly credible as nonfiction; his ham-handed kitchen-sink overkill was a dead giveaway.
‘TNR is “Centristâ€ÂÂ? That’s news to me. TNR may not be far left, but they are left.’
How do I spot a lefty? He calls himself a moderate.
“How do I spot a lefty? He calls himself a moderate.”
And just the other day, Kos was saying that he is the center, and was calling for a purge of right-wing deviationists.
“Let’s face it: progg’ism is just a new and different kind of LARPing.”
Yeah, that’s the way I’ve always had it figured.
[…] In case you missed it, Jeff Goldstein analyzes the semiotics of Scott Thomas […]
[…] Middling Ground: more on the semiotics of Scott Thomas Beauchamp […]
[…] my post yesterday questioning her analysis of the Beauchamp saga. In her first post, remember, Young took the […]
#19 Karl said:
No, Karl, that won’t do. In the liberal worldview, if conservatives hold to a particular position, it’s always because of some low, morally repugnant character flaw. Against affirmative action? It’s because you’re a racist. Opposed to abortion on demand? You just want to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Not too excited about socialized medicine? You’re a heartless bastard who doesn’t care about the sick. Get upset when the troops are maligned? You’re a Bushitler cheerleader with his head in the sand.
It’s ALWAYS the base motive with these people. Always.
Thanks to the Net, AND the military people really taking umbrage at Buttchump’s charges; I now know that he picked up the “Yarmulka as a skull cap” idea from an article he probably saw in the GERMAN PRESS, when he was in Germany. And, this type of incident, with skulls, got front page coverage.
No. No attribution to the source.
As to the “burnt lady,” turns out an author, BRAD THOR, developed such a scene in his fiction. But no attribution is given.
All you know is that our military has really investigated this article, now. And, they’ve put all the troops in this platoon under oath. No one corroborates any of “Scott Thomas'” fiction.
The only reasons TNR published this, was to put a spin on our troops in Iraq, as being savages. John Kerry’s Genghis Khan’s. DIDN’T FLY!
Doesn’t pass the smell test.
But the temptations to rake in a Pulitzer overrode judgement. Typical for the C-BS’ers. And, TNR. They’ve been “Glassed” again. Meaning they don’t care to learn at all.
Quite a victory for the Net. And, the millions of people who come, here, instead of going to those old elitists. The fact checking, with so many people participating, has been phenomenal. Like a super-computer.
More fake but accurate lies from the people who would like to tell us how they can cleanse our collective psyche if not our souls.
Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s To Do List
1. Divorce current wife.
2. Find rich widow; marry her.
3. Meet with Al Qaeda and Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Paris, to coordinate anti-American strategy with the hoped-for result of America’s pull-out of Iraq. If anyone asks, claim I went there for my honeymoon, and after all, I met “with both sides.” Come to think of it, might as well invite Congressional Democrats too — just remember to get Iran to promise to pay for their junkets (I can confidently promise them loads of great propaganda — after all, Pelosi showed Bashar Assad she would deliver the goods). (Remember to never ever even think of “Pelosi” and “deliver the goods” in the same sentence ever ever again.)
4. Use new wife’s money and the Kos sheeps’ unquestioning support (just remember to blog a few articles claiming that my signed confession to making it all up was coerced under torture at Gitmo and intercepted by the NSA) to win election to the Senate.
5. Run for President.
6. Pray to Allah that I don’t lose like Kerry. (Perhaps I could win election by promising the American people that all Islamist terrorism would go away because I had made a deal with AQ and Iran that after my inauguration ceremony I’d declare martial/sharia law). Peace through Submission, I mean after all, they won’t want to kill us once they’ve won, right?
[…] “paranoia,” this time from Charles Krauthammer: the whole point of that story was to demonstrate how the war […]