Beauchamp [bou-champ] :
1. the act of fabricating or fantastically elaborating facts to create a news story or article, which is then presented as a true representation of the facts as they actually occurred. Usually used to prove a political point or to construct or reinforce a left-wing “narrative”. Slander, hyperbole, neologisms and “Gross Exaggerations and Inaccurate Allegations” are some of the main characteristics of a Beauchamped news article.
2. a story so fabricated or invented
“Instead of confessing his infidelity, President Bill Clinton tried to Beauchamp his way out of the Monica Lewinsky/Paula Jones scandal.”
“The ‘plastic turkey’ story about President Bush’s visit to Iraq on Christmas 2003 is now understood to be merely a Beauchamp.”
–verb (used with an object)
to create a story using Beauchampian methods:
“The soldier totally Beauchamped his testimony when he made up stories of atrocities reminiscent of Jenjis Khan.”
“Senator Durbin was caught Beauchamping his military record.”
exaggerated, dramatized, falsified or created out of whole cloth
“WarSoldier Scott Thomas’ diaries from Iraq were proven by U.S. Army investigators to have been Beauchamped IdeaThoughts.”
Named for Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an American soldier who was disciplined by the U.S. Army for inventing stories detailing illegal and barbaric behavior by Beauchamp and his fellow soldiers, published in The New Republic, a liberal magazine. He has not (to date) publicly recanted the stories, although military documents show he told Army investigators that he was indeed guilty of “Gross Exaggerations and Inaccurate Allegations”. His writing was also notable for its neologisms and redundant portmanteau words like “BrainMind” and “EmotionFeelings”.
There are so many fact errors, hinted slurs and innuendos piled into Tim Rutten’s “Drudge, New Republic battle over ‘Baghdad Diarist,’ that reading it, you would think you were reading the L.A. Times… oh wait.
A commenter on that post wonders
Andrew X says:
Ruttan himself says….
“the New Republic — still unable to determine whether its story was true or false…”
This kind of ends the discussion right there does it not? Given the nature of the allegations, any news organization that is “unable to determine whether its story was true or false” is obligated to assume they are false until further proven, and to say so quite cleary. All the rest is interesting, but utterly meaningless.
Not quite Andrew X! TNR is merely applying Mape’s Law:
Mape’s Law [meyps law]:
1.a rule of reporting which states that any alleged fact or story which is of indeterminate origin, but which furthers any leftist cause or issue, shall be considered true until overwhelmingly proven false by authorities not considered (by leftist opinion makers) to have any affiliation with nor bias toward conservatives and/or Republicans.
2. Mape’s Law also applies to the inverse of the example above.
“Scott Beauchamp’s fables must be considered factual incidents according to Mape’s Law.”
“Using Mape’s Law, it is a given that allegations by the SBVT against John French Kerry were false.”
Named for Mary Mapes, a producer for CBS News who investigated, wrote and produced a report for CBS Nightly News (read on-camera by newsreader Dan Rather) slandering President Bush‘s service in the TANG, in concert with Democrat presidential candidate John French Kerry‘s campaign staff. This story was calculated to damage Bush‘s re-election prospects, based on documents that were called into question by dozens of experts. Since the documents providence and validity have never been conclusively disproved, Mapes contends that this proves they are in fact authentic. Both Mapes and Rather were fired by CBS following an investigation of the incident.
(background: “Why Beauchamp Matters.”)