<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.observer.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>NY Observer &gt; Scott Beauchamp</title>
 <link>http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/51326/feed</link>
 <description>Articles from Observer.com</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>TNR Diarist Scott Beauchamp&#039;s Army Unit Back in the News</title>
 <link>http://www.observer.com/2008/media/soldiers-charged-conspiracy-murder-iraqi-detainees-are-tnr-diarist-scott-beauchamps-compa</link>
 <description><![CDATA[<!--paging_filter--><p>The four soldiers <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jT_5PGYtGZytODmicOPphKtIPm0QD928TLSG0">being charged with of conspiring to murder Iraqi prisoners</a> in Baghdad last spring are in the same company as <em>The New Republic</em>'s former man in Iraq, Scott Beauchamp, Media Mob has learned.</p>
<p>Mr. Beauchamp wrote several pieces for <em>TNR </em>under the name <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=860c9bec-a77a-4786-a869-cc893a43c8b2">Scott Thomas</a> last summer in which he described in harrowing detail what it was like to be a soldier in Baghdad. His pieces included several gruesome scenes—one in which soldiers in his company deliberately <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f3f83377-7b85-4ad8-8c27-e8167e59a412">ran over dogs</a> in their Humvees, another in which they <a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=860c9bec-a77a-4786-a869-cc893a43c8b2">mock an Iraqi woman who had been wounded by an IED</a>—that drew suspicions from skeptical readers. <span class='read-more'><a href="http://www.observer.com/2008/media/soldiers-charged-conspiracy-murder-iraqi-detainees-are-tnr-diarist-scott-beauchamps-compa">&nbsp;read&nbsp;more&nbsp;&raquo;</a></span></p>]]></description>
 <comments>http://www.observer.com/2008/media/soldiers-charged-conspiracy-murder-iraqi-detainees-are-tnr-diarist-scott-beauchamps-compa#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/channel/media">Media</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/51326">Scott Beauchamp</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/49968">The New Republic</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:56:25 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Leon Neyfakh</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">72685 at http://www.observer.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>A TNR Editor&#039;s Covert Conversation With Scott Beauchamp </title>
 <link>http://www.observer.com/2007/tnr-editors-covert-conversation-scott-beauchamp</link>
 <description><![CDATA[<!--paging_filter--><p>As <em>The Observer </em><a href="/2007/foer-s-foggy-new-republic-retraction-doesn-t-please-everyone">wrote yesterday</a>, one of the main reasons <em>New Republic</em> editor Franklin Foer decided to end the magazine's effort to verify Scott Beauchamp's &quot;Baghdad Diarist&quot; columns and issue a retraction was Mr. Foer's belief that Mr. Beauchamp—who was stationed in Iraq until last month—was not fully cooperating with <em>TNR</em>'s investigation, and sometimes appeared uninterested in defending himself. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In a phone interview with <em>The Observer</em> Friday, Mr. Beauchamp's wife, former <em>TNR</em> reporter-researcher Elspeth Reeve, shed a bit more light on that aspect of the controversy.<span>  </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In early August, the web site of <em>The Weekly Standard</em>, citing a military source close to the army's internal investigation, reported that Mr. Beauchamp had signed a sworn statement recanting much of what he'd described in his <em>TNR</em> pieces. <em>TNR</em>'s editors were understandably troubled by the news, and set about trying to verify it—a task made much more difficult by the fact that, from late July until September, the Army would not allow Mr. Beauchamp to speak to <em>TNR</em>.  <span class='read-more'><a href="http://www.observer.com/2007/tnr-editors-covert-conversation-scott-beauchamp">&nbsp;read&nbsp;more&nbsp;&raquo;</a></span></p>]]></description>
 <comments>http://www.observer.com/2007/tnr-editors-covert-conversation-scott-beauchamp#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/channel/media">Media</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/28658">Franklin Foer</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/51326">Scott Beauchamp</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/49968">The New Republic</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:20:19 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Leon Neyfakh</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">61960 at http://www.observer.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>TNR: Beauchamp Did Not Recant His Story, Investigation Ongoing (UPDATE)</title>
 <link>http://www.observer.com/2007/tnr-beauchamp-did-not-recant-his-story-investigation-ongoing</link>
 <description><![CDATA[<!--paging_filter--><p>The editors of <em>The New Republic </em>have <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/10/26/a-scott-beauchamp-update.aspx">posted a statement</a> saying that Scott Beauchamp, the U.S. Army private whose unsigned <em>TNR</em> dispatches from Iraq came under scrutiny this summer, did not admit to fabricating any parts of his stories--contrary to an article posted on The Drudge Report Wednesday.
<p>The Drudge Report posted several documents pertaining to the Army's investigation into the Beauchamp affair, including a transcript of telephone conversation from Sept. 6 in which Mr. Beauchamp refuses to confirm that his stories were true when asked by <em>TNR</em> editor Franklin Foer and  executive editor Peter Scoblic. </p>
<p>That transcript--which, along with Drudge's article and the other documents, were removed from The Drudge Report after a few hours--sparked an uproar among <em>TNR</em>'s conservative critics, who said the editors of the magazine should have informed their readers of the conversation.  <span class='read-more'><a href="http://www.observer.com/2007/tnr-beauchamp-did-not-recant-his-story-investigation-ongoing">&nbsp;read&nbsp;more&nbsp;&raquo;</a></span></p>]]></description>
 <comments>http://www.observer.com/2007/tnr-beauchamp-did-not-recant-his-story-investigation-ongoing#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/channel/media">Media</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/28658">Franklin Foer</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/51326">Scott Beauchamp</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/49968">The New Republic</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:41:09 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Leon Neyfakh</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">59463 at http://www.observer.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>TNR&#039;s Foer: Drudge&#039;s Documents Could Have Come Only From the Army (UPDATE)</title>
 <link>http://www.observer.com/2007/tnrs-foer-drudges-documents-could-have-come-only-army</link>
 <description><![CDATA[<!--paging_filter--><p> Franklin Foer, editor of <em>The New Republic</em>, said in an interview that the documents Matt Drudge <a href="http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm">posted this afternoon</a>—and <a href="/2007/drudge-calls-out-tnr-beauchamp-takes-it-back-hours-later">removed several hours later</a> without explanation—could have only come from the Army.
<p>Mr. Foer said he called <em>TNR</em>’s contact there, Major Kirk Luedeke, as soon as the documents appeared on Drudge’s Web site. According to Mr. Foer, Major Luedeke told him that the Army was “investigating the source of the leak,” though they did not explicitly take responsibility for it.</p>
<p>&quot;It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests,” Mr. Foer said. “This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”
<p>Mr. Foer said <em>TNR</em> had been trying since July to get access to some of the documents Mr. Drudge posted, but that the Army had not cooperated.</p>
<p>Among these was the Army’s final report on its investigation into Mr. Beauchamp’s <em>TNR</em> pieces. The report concludes that portions of those pieces had been “completely fabricated.&quot;</p>
<p>UPDATE: In an e-mail to the Media Mob, Major Luedeke of the 4th Brigade Public Affairs office said, “All I can tell you is that the leak did not originate with this office, and that the Army is looking into who is responsible. That process is being handled at levels above this brigade, however.&quot;  </p>
<p> <span> </span>
<p>E-mails to Mr. Drudge have not been returned. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
 <comments>http://www.observer.com/2007/tnrs-foer-drudges-documents-could-have-come-only-army#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/channel/media">Media</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/28658">Franklin Foer</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/51326">Scott Beauchamp</category>
 <category domain="http://www.observer.com/taxonomy/term/49968">The New Republic</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:05:40 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Leon Neyfakh</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">59379 at http://www.observer.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
