Instapundit.com -

MORE TROUBLE FOR FRANKLIN FOER AND THE NEW REPUBLIC: Beauchamp Story Collapses. Documents at the link.

At the very least, they should be embarrassed about their snarky response to those who doubted the story.

Given the plagiarism and outright lying for which The New Republic has become a byword, it is obvious that they are entirely immune to any sort of shame or embarrassment whatsoever.

You’d think that at least Franklin Foer’s job would be on the ash heap of history, but probably not.

Why does anybody take this rag seriously any more?

UPDATE: The Weekly Standard

The documents posted by Drudge reveal that the New Republic’s editors have known for several weeks that the central anecdote of the story was untrue, that the other anecdotes were deeply suspect, and that the author was no longer standing by his work. And yet they remained publicly silent even though they had long ago promised to be open and forthcoming on the matter. Worse still, they asked Beauchamp to cancel pending interviews with the Washington Post and Newsweek, lest their complicity in Beauchamp’s slanders come to light.

Foer attacked his magazine’s critics as “reckless” and “ideologically motivated,” at one point even demanding an apology from the bloggers who did so much to advance this story and find out the truth of the matter. He now has more than a little ’splaining to do.

Explanations? I assume they’ll merely try to keep on stonewalling it as they have all along. Next up? Their accusations that Drudge is “ideologically motivated,” as if that is more important than the lies they published themselves.

UPDATE: Query - why did Drudge first lift the links to the docs, then shove any mention of them down the memory hole? That sort of thing is useless in the era of the blogosphere. Michelle Malkin has them here, if you want to read them for yourself.

Submit to Stumbled Upon!