[JennysCool]

we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them.

What a wussy "retraction."

[Talking_Mouse]

What do you expect? They’re a wussy “paper”.

[alloysteel]

From that last paragraph in the article:

“... we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them.”

Not that Beauchamp flat out lied, but he “rearranged” fact.

A fine distinction, that.

[Enchante]

"Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that."

ROFLMHO. He should have said "unfortunately the (lack of) standards at this magazine require that we all roll in dog crap, eat the stuff, and regurgitate it to the public weekly. What a weak, snivelling, cowardly non-retraction retraction. After the Stephen Glass affair and now Beauchump-gate, no one at TNR should ever be allowed to work in journalism again.

[airedale]

It’s not a retraction and wasn’t intended as such rather it’s an attempt by Mr Foer to keep his job and keep the magazine afloat. I did notice that he named a lot of participants

“There was the time that Jibson wore the top of a human skull as a hat during a mission. All of Short’s dog hunting stories (I think he’s up to 17 kills). The time we hid a pink dildo in a very conservative Christian kids gear before an inspection (don’t ask how we got a pink dildo in Iraq).”

There are about 3 more named throughout the article. Seems like most of them would be worth talking to. Were they even there?