October 28, 2007

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

Alfred A. KnopfAllstateAmazon.comAmerican Gas Station
American Petroleum InstituteAstroZeneca (current issue)Auto AllianceBearing Point (see below)
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (current issue)BP (current issue)Chevron (current issue)CNN
FLAME (current issue)Federal ExpressThe Financial TimesFocus Features
Ford Motor CompanyFreddie MacGMGrove Atlantic
HBOHarvard University PressHistory ChannelHoover Institution (current issue)
MetLifeMicrosoftMortage BankersNuclear Energy Institute
The New SchoolNew York TimesNovartisPalgrave Macmillan (current issue)
Simon & ShusterJohn Templeton Foundation (current issue)University of Chicago PressUniversity Press of Kansas (current issue)
U.S. TelecomVisa (current issue)The Wall Street JournalWarner Brothers
Warner Brothers Home VideoW.W. NortonWyeth LaboratoriesYale University Press (current issue)

I'd ask U.S. military veterans, military families, active duty personnel, and the vast majority of Americans who support our servicemen and women to call these companies, institutions and agencies to pull their advertising from TNR, effective immediately.

Advertising with The New Republic represents a tacit support of their on-going support of an obvious lie, a continuing, unapologetic assault on the reputation of an American Army unit presently deployed in combat.

Advertising in The New Republic sends a message that advertisers do not care about journalistic ethics, or what most would consider editorial fraud.

I would ask advertisers to pull all of their advertising from the print edition of The New Republic and until the senior editors responsible for this debacle are disciplined, with those at the top resigning.

The New Republic doesn't have an obligation to support the troops, or support the war in Iraq. It does have an obligation to retract stories for which they can provide no support.

Canwest MediaWorks, the Canadian company that owns The New Republic, does not have an obligation to decide the editorial policies of The New Republic, but it does have an obligation to discipline all editors who have refused to act ethically, who have misled readers, and who have attacked the military for defending itself from proven falsehoods and gross exaggerations (email Canwest Global CFO John McGuire at, and be polite but firm).

We cannot force The New Republic to behave honorably, but we can make their dishonesty come at a price.

Update: I just had a conversation with a friend who had been the target of a boycott, and I agree that the best way to address this is to respectfully ask advertisers to pull their advertising from TNR as a show of support for the troops. The post above has been edited to reflect that.

Update: Added Canwest's CFO email address (h/t Tara).

10/29 Update: Steve Lunceford, Director of Global Communications for Bearing Point, states that "I believe we haven't advertised with that publication in years." As they are not apparently an advertiser, I'm striking them from the list.

And yet, the New Republic has them on a list of " recent advetisers" according to their Media Kit (PDF).

Posted by Confederate Yankee at October 28, 2007 09:14 PM

"University Press of Kansas"?

As a Wildcat fan, that one cuts me deep...

Posted by: swj719AWG at October 28, 2007 10:13 PM

Damn straight and about time.

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

Yeah, I'm sure API is shaking in their boots.

Posted by: keep dreaming at October 29, 2007 01:36 AM
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

It doesn't make much sense for NEI to be advertising with them. How did you identify them.

Posted by: Jim C at October 29, 2007 08:18 AM

"Keep Dreaming": Tell it to Dan Rather. You can currently find him on a Z-list cable channel, as I recall.

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

Just - as as Canuck, you can contact the Asper family and ask them if they know what Foer and the rest of his band of incompetent traitors are doing with their magazine! Yes, TNR is owned by the same Aspers as Canwest Global - and while they may be Liberals, Izzy at least has always been a strong supporter of Israel and the Asper papers have been pretty supportive of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. Let them know that this is not how their mag should be run.

Posted by: holdfast at October 29, 2007 08:19 AM

Actually, the family that owns The New Republic resides in Canada.

Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at October 29, 2007 08:23 AM

Let me get this straight: I'm supposed to politely tell the NY Times to pull *their* advertising because TNR hasn't supported the troops and prints lies and then doesn't retract them. And my threat against the NY Times is that I won't buy their product any more ... which I never have done in the first place.

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

TNR readers have one characteristic that truly endears them to the advertisers.

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

I would suggest a polite but firm email to"

CanWest Global
Investor Relations
John Maguire, Chief Financial Officer

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

But above all people, be nice. As Tara said "firm but polite"

Posted by: glenn at October 29, 2007 09:22 AM

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.
PS - For those unaware, Wildcat is Kanas State University mascot.

Posted by: Michael Reed at October 29, 2007 10:00 AM

Great Googly Moogly, I regularly do business with 80% of the companies on that list. All the publishers, Ford, GM.... er, "did."

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

Dear Mr. Hoover,

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.


P.S. Best to Rummy.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2007 10:33 AM

tilting at windmills...

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

Uh, no. The Army didn't pick TNR as its target, TNR picked the Army as its target.

Posted by: TallDave at October 29, 2007 12:07 PM

As evidenced by some commenters, to what can all of this leftist nonsense be attributed?

...I call it RCD, a reading comprehension deficiency.

Posted by: everydayjoe at October 29, 2007 12:15 PM

*I just fired off this e-mail to Mr. McGuire at CanWest. Now to get cracking on that e-mail to Wyeth.....


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.


Amos Hale Adams
(address and phone number deleted)

Posted by: Hale Adams at October 29, 2007 12:33 PM

The alternative is to do nothing. So you might as well e-mail the advertisers and ask all your friends to do the same.

Posted by: cv at October 29, 2007 01:11 PM

You would do better to include an example letter which could be copied and modified. Most people will get tied up trying to toss something together and either be unclear orsound raving. I would have copied a couple paragraphs for the information and edited it to fit my view, but for some reason it's near impossible to select text from your site. Perhaps a good tactic in dealling with those who would qute you out of context, but not very usefull in a letter writing campaign.

Posted by: bcismar at October 29, 2007 01:37 PM

Michael Yon has an interesting post about this. He's been in Iraq with Beauchamp's unit. Apparently Beauchamp is handling this thing in a way which the editors of TNR could never understand. He has apparently cleared the air with his fellow soldiers, and is continuing to serve honorably in combat. If this is correct (and Yon has far more credibility on these matters than just about anyone) then my hat is off to Beauchamp--whatever one may think of what he wrote, he demonstrated considerable courage and fortitude. If he can earn the respect of his fellow soldiers, he has mine as well. And the weasels at TNR look even more shameful by his example.
(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

Since so few of you 27 percenters read, I am confident your boycott will do more to please your senses than to hurt TNR, who, by the way, have not lied. They release facts as they come in (except the leaked ones, you guys do that!)

Posted by: rishy at October 29, 2007 02:52 PM

"They release facts as they come in (except the leaked ones, you guys do that!)"

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"


Posted by: TMF at October 29, 2007 03:04 PM

Tell me rishy... what are those facts that TNR has released as they came in?

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

Your desperation is showing. You all need to find a real controversy to get your panties all twisted about (like, um, no WMD, torture, Gonzales, face-shooting, FISA, sub-standard healthcare for veterans, etc). This is not the controversy for you. It is a non-controversy. Relax.

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

"I was born dumb"

You got one thing right, rish. Well done

Posted by: TMF at October 29, 2007 03:45 PM

Isn't funny how -- without exception -- when TNR defenders turn up and are confronted with the laundry list of TNR's misconduct, they immediately switch to "it's no big deal?" and throw in a list of their complaints about other issues with no defense of their merits?

Posted by: Karl at October 29, 2007 04:00 PM

"You all need to find a real controversy to get your panties all twisted about (like, um, no WMD, torture, Gonzales, face-shooting, FISA, sub-standard healthcare for veterans, etc). This is not the controversy for you. It is a non-controversy. Relax."

Hey man, you want some real controversy? Check it out new GI Joe Kerfuffel. ROTFLMAO

Posted by: Randy at October 29, 2007 04:14 PM

Great idea; I'll be sending some letters tonight. One correction to the above list, however: it's "AstraZeneca," not "Astro Zeneca."

Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at October 29, 2007 04:16 PM

Rishy says: "I was born dumb."

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:

"I am a public school teacher in.....Berkeley!"

Posted by: Justacanuck at October 29, 2007 04:21 PM

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

rishy is unaware that Beauchamp has admitted he was not a witness to the supposed "Saddam-era dumping ground" incident (which appears to have been some buried animal bones) and was not a witness to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle killing dogs in the street.

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

Grey Fox said: "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."

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

TNR appreciates all of the right wings attempts to increase its circulation. It was a little known or read perodical until rather lately.

Posted by: John Ryan at October 29, 2007 06:12 PM

Hey Mike,
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

It's not about attack, attack, attack, Mike. Individual soldiers will handle the stresses of war differently. Hundreds of thousands of our men and women in uniform have served in Iraq. Some have handled the horrors of war better than others. I honor them all. That doesn't mean the fight doesn't need to be fought.

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.

Posted by: James W, Hanau, Germany at October 29, 2007 07:17 PM

Rishy, everyone is born dumb. One must really exert one's self to remain so.

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

I know that I am new at this blog...but, why delete the comments from Mike. He was at least somewhat on topic with the "phony soldiers" comment.

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

Hit them where it hurts – the wallet. A boycott is a good idea.

Posted by: Ledger1 at October 29, 2007 07:53 PM

Ok, Bob just made it clear for me why my last comment was naive...which is probably an understatement. Good grief.

Posted by: James W, Hanau, Germany at October 29, 2007 08:25 PM

Mike does have a point; how do you plan going about boycotting the conservative fountainhead known as Hoover Institute?

Posted by: Jaxebadt at October 29, 2007 11:17 PM

I didn't give a damn about this controversy until I read the news of this so-called "boycott." Now my wife and I are going to subscribe to TNR just to piss you guys off. I'm sure the guys at TNR are grateful for helping to increase their circulation!!! Keep up the good work!!

Posted by: Angry liberal at October 29, 2007 11:27 PM

There's a certain amount of comedy (or is it irony) here - because the New Republic has been the subject of attacks for years from the Left (trademark pending) most recently due to 1) it's support of the Iraq War 2) it being home to a set of neoconservative liberals and 3) it basically being somewhat irrelevant YET annoyingly self important.

Posted by: shingles at October 30, 2007 12:14 AM

OK now the left is going to go after Pajamas Media advertisers. And there are rather more of them so its much more likely that they will be taken notice of.

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

Why is it that far left wing fanatical nutjobs like PHB refuse to add that Randi Rhodes claimed that Blackwater started the fire?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 30, 2007 07:53 AM

PHB, what about Harry Reid claiming that global warming caused the fires, then backing off it?

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

Oops, the LA Times link didn't format correctly for some reason. Here ya go, in handy TinyURL format:

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

Well, darn. I'll contact 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.

Posted by: funky chicken at October 30, 2007 11:20 AM

Boycott C.N.N.?
You're making it too easy.

Posted by: George at October 30, 2007 12:27 PM

Advertising Age snarks:

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

"I suspect the kids at AA haven't yet read the fisking the silly LAT article prompted."

Does anyone actually read "Fiskings" anymore? They're sooo 2003.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at October 30, 2007 02:26 PM

This is a bad idea. Stick to learning things and exposing facts, not these types of lobbying efforts. It smacks of overreaching, bullying, and is likely to be pathetically unsucsessful as well. Just stick to exposing truth. Not agitating to put TNR out of business.

Posted by: TCO at October 30, 2007 02:52 PM
Not agitating to put TNR out of business.

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

"Scott Beauchamp ... has been tried, found guilty and punished,"

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

Marc, you're the one getting the laugh.

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

I am way ahead of you on GM and Ford. I don't buy anything but MOPAR.

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

Okay, genius, enlighten me. Please list the charges brought against Mr. Beauchamp under the UCMJ, and then direct me to some official verification of the verdict and sentence.

Posted by: marc page at October 30, 2007 09:38 PM

By the way, Harry Truman's dead; and has been for quite a while. (And some people, of certain racial and ethnic backgrounds, might say: not a moment too soon.)

Posted by: marc page at October 30, 2007 09:40 PM

Hey, funky chicken:

Well, darn. I'll contact 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


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

" ... a legal option available ... "

" ... 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

Legal Review of AR 15-6 Investigation Regarding Allegations of Soldier Misconduct Published in The New Republic" (PDF) is part of the findings against him, but the document that explains that he was found guilty of violating AR 530-1 OPSEC and what caused him to be busted in rank from PV-2 down to PV-1 has not yet been released.

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.


Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 06:08 AM

Marc, you're the one making Mount Everest out of a molehill.

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

I received the following this morning:

"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.


Elizabeth Sheldon

Elizabeth W. Sheldon
The New Republic
1331 H Street NW, Ste. 700
Washington, DC 20005

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

[And, unlike your sarcastic sign-off, I really do hope you have a good day; a day untainted by phony outrage over inconsequential matters.]

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

Jay, sending you a form letter probably took like 10 seconds.

Posted by: bob at October 31, 2007 07:08 PM

Mr. Foer will leave TNR when it suits him to leave. If you all imagine for one minute that incessant whining from a group of people who never had any prior interest in the magazine, and who are not likely to bother with it in the future, then it seems to me that you've long passed the high-water mark on delusions of grandeur.

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

Marc, in the real world, people are held accountable for their actions in publishing falsehoods.

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

Yup, Bob, it was a form letter with a copy to a chap who I suspect John Maguire handed the file to saying "Bury this pile of shit. Get whoever it is who is the publisher of this magazine which we somehow were suckered into buying and tell her to get these people out of my inbox." Hence the letter.

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 1, 2007 12:35 AM

Seems like has changed the form on the contact page you were linking to. It's gone from an email form to customer service, to an email form specifically made for media contacts.

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 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 2, 2007 05:22 AM