It's a sign of our times that a 3,000 word article in the New York Times merits a 2,200 word post in the New Republic. But so it is.

The long of the short of it is that the Times had been chasing the story for months. Along with Marc Santora, who left the McCain beat due to the story, Marilyn Thompson, who is bylined on piece, left the Times altogether because of it.

As Drudge posts tend to do, news that the Times was working on this piece in December added more pressure to the story. Yet Bill Keller and other Times staffers insist they decided to run the story last night only because it was ready, and had no political motives. Considering this story will have no effect on the Republican nomination and just makes the Times look likes it stereotype–check out any of the 1764 comments on the piece–it's a legitimate defense.

And really, who cares why the Times ran the piece now? As Bill Keller wrote in an email to Gabe Sherman, the author of the piece, current Portfolio scribe and ex-Observer writer:

This sounds like a pointless exercise to me–speculating about reporting that may or may not result in an article. But if that's what Special Correspondents of The New Republic do, speculate away. When we have something to say, we'll say it in the paper.

Maybe the Times was wrong to run the piece. But here, Keller has a point.

Less than two weeks after Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp (a.k.a. the "Baghdad Diarist") claimed he was "willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name," comes the breaking news that Beauchamp's name is, though fancy, apparently not worth very much.

"Beauchamp…has signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods," writes the Weekly Standard, adding that the "fabrications contain[ed] only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of a source."

In further disappointing news for Beauchamp, he's just been informed that he has approximately zero chance of parlaying his highly publicized faux-pas into a major motion picture (inspired by actual events!) starring Hayden Christensen as the unconvincing lead, Chloe Sevigny as the offbeat love-interest who doesn't really pan out and a before-he-was-famous Peter Sarsgaard in the role of crack-editor/real life douchebag Charles "Chuck" Lane.

Take that, Weekly Standard. In The New Republic's ongoing saga about its "Baghdad Diarist" column (keep up, people), EIC Franklin Foer and his team claim to have vetted and confirmed every detail about Scott Thomas Beauchamp's heavily contested accounts of U.S. solider life in Iraq.

Well, except for one: The place where soldiers mocked a woman disfigured by a bomb explosion. It was not in Baghdad, but Kuwait. Aside from that, the magazines says they "place great weight on the corroborations we have received, [but] we wished to know more." Unfortunately, the U.S. military began its own investigation into Beauchamp's claims – like soliders running over a dog, or playing with the skulls of Iraqi children – and cut his phone and computer access for speaking so publicly.

Which, if you believe many conservative bloggers' viewpoint, is exactly what TNR would've wanted: Another excuse to play pick-and-choose journalism and finger the military as evildoers. As for the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, well, he's still not satisfied.

At ABC headquarters in D.C., mysterious "white, powdery" substance turns out to be aspirin; Related: In moment of inspired genius, Lindsay Lohan's legal team unveils new "Tylenol" defense.

• CBS to pay Imus an undisclosed settlement. In exchange, the ousted radio D.J. will agree to "shut the fuck up."

• Ron Burkle still exploring the idea of adding Star and The National Enquirer to his "crappy supermarket tabloids" repertoire.

• Yeah, we're going to out on a limb here and say that Business Week's Jon Fine thinks Arthur Sulzberger should go private.

• Baghdad Diarist unimpressed with Weekly Standard and New Republic for being unimpressed with him: "It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq."

"Right now, we have no reason to believe that his stories are anything other than what we first suspected them to be: a 'pastiche of the 'This is no bullshit . . . stories soldiers like to tell.'" That's The Weekly Standard's response to the self-outing of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, otherwise known as The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" whose Iraq war accounts have been, let's say, "questioned." As the solider tells it: "My pieces were always intended to provide my discrete view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq."

But that's still not good enough for the Standard's Michael Goldfarb, who wants dates and names to go along with Beauchamp's trio of tales. It's like their insisting on accuracy and accountability or something.

The Weekly Standard is having a field day with The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" problems. As you'll recall, the liberal-leaning rag's editor Franklin Foer is being called out for what many claim are gross exaggerations made by the column's author, pseudonym Scott Thomas, who is supposedly a current U.S. soldier. And TWS's more conservative editors want the soldier outed and, more than anything, for the competition to be embarrassed.

CONTINUED »

Does The New Republic have a new Stephen Glass on its hands? The magazine's "Baghdad Diarist" – penned by the pseudonym Scott Thomas, a U.S. solider in Iraq, and which has been published three times – is being called everything from "punctuated with red flags" to "complete garbage" when it comes to the possibility that its first-person accounts are true. And The Weekly Standard is leading the fight for the truth. Or the chance to make the competition look incompetent.

CONTINUED »

Christopher Orr is making good use of his Lexis account today. The New Republic senior editor is waling on Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales for his inability to see the entertainment landscape post-1998, when Seinfeld signed off. You see, Shales really, really liked that show. So much so that since Seinfeld went off the air, "Shales has cited it in a remarkable 79 articles. (Compare that to a mere 18 mentions of The Simpsons, which has actually been running, albeit at quarter-steam, all those years.)"

Shales has described "Seinfeld" as "the most successful and acclaimed sitcom ever"; "one of the most popular and highly praised sitcoms ever"; "It may have constituted a 'great era' all by itself"; "the last great sitcom of the age of the sitcom"; and "the last really funny TV show"–a tidal wave of praise that would be less overwhelming if not for the fact that all these quotes appeared in the last 14 months, many years after the show went defunct.

Orr wants to know why Shales can't look to The Office, Curb Your Enthusiasm, or even Scrubs for a new analogy for great TV, or lack thereof. Luckily, there's the off chance that Shales will tune in to VH1's What Perez Says and walk away with fresh means of comparison. Or another excuse to long for Jerry.

George Best, arguably the greatest British soccer player of all time, once said of David Beckham: "He cannot kick with his left foot, he cannot head a ball, he cannot tackle, and he does not score many goals. Apart from that, he's all right."

So begins Aleksandar Hemon's utterly amazing article in yesterday's New Republic, conservatively titled, "Why David Beckham Sucks." Hemon then goes on to chronicle David Beckham's lackluster soccer career, noting his minimal achievements and sporadic successes, and ultimately characterizes him as underwhelmingly mediocre. At least, from a technical standpoint.

CONTINUED »

• A bunch of athletes and movies stars banged some models at the Sports Illustrated party, and all they got was Hepatitis?

• YouTube crushes dreams of everyone left wanting more after Sunday night's four hour long awards show snoozefest.

• Martha Stewart considers expansion into Asia to determine whether Chinese women are as boring as American women.

• Marty Peretz to remain New Republic's editor-in-share despite not having anything invested in it.

• NBC is wrong to ban Britney, Anna Nicole, says someone familiar with the term "ratings."

The "real winners" of the Academy Awards were the screenwriters. And Helen Mirren's cleavage.

• If a guy with Windows Movie Maker and access to Google Images can lay down funnier lines than Best Week Ever, maybe that United Talent Agency web initiative has some feet. [Jackson Blue]

• Celeb press corp tires of Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn relationship charades. This blog tires of (but will continue reporting on) meta coverage thereof. [Radar]

• Porn empresario Michael Lucas throws down with New York magazine. [Queerty]

• Comely Whipple's World host George Whipple lets his pocket protector come loose on Friday nights. [Radar]

• Ken Sunshine pours the haterade on bloggers. That's "bloggers," code word for "anyone who hates on my clients." [FBNY]

• New Republic associate editor Spencer Ackerman becomes the first person fired from the title since Stephen Glass, in '98. Spencer's crime? Hating on TNR on a blog. Kids these days. [NYO]

• Former Sarah Gray Miller Budget Living cohort Alex Bhattacharji becomes Daniel Peres' newest bottom at Details. [NYO]

Today, David Carr explains why writing for a blog is not the perfect job for every journalist. His theory is that bloggers have to listen to people — and journalists have sort of a tough time doing that. Carr insinuates that print journalists prefer to send their opinions and theories out into the world on printed paper, with little to response from the general public — whereas bloggers welcome responses from readers. (We will listen to our readers bitch, but we prefer to listen to gossip.)

Carr's latest blog expose was written in light of New Republic editor Lee Siegel's behavior on the site's blog. After taking on an anonymous commenter identity, he argued back with readers who did not agree with him, calling himself "brilliant" and "brave." (Obviously, he didn't get many warm fuzzies as a child.) But Siegel, looking back, regrets his decision to take on a faux identity and compliment the shit out of himself with berating his readers.

“People of course have a right to question a critic’s judgment, but there’s a difference between doing that and merely insulting someone you disagree with,” he said in a phone call. “So I wildly created an over-the-top persona and adopted the tone of my attackers, when I should have just gone to the gym instead.”

Ah, yes. The gym. New Republic EIC Franklin Foer just put in a request to admin to get Crunch memberships for everyone on staff.

A Comeback Overshadowed by a Blog [David Carr, New York Times]

• Exactly 11 people, and four blogs, await the announcement of the Village Voice's new editor. [NYT]

• It was probably Robin Givhan's appearance on the Colbert Report that locked up the Pulitzer for her. [WWD]

• One day soon, Superman will wash his tights in Tide. [WSJ]

• How a Chronicle of Higher Education article about university profs delivering soundbites for the media gets printed without a Robert Thompson mention baffles us. [TCOHE]

• Blogs and Internet pundits, like TV pundits just a few years ago, wield a "disproportionately large influence" on society, says new research. Also, according to new research, "Blah, blah, blah." [Guardian]

• Judging by its' latest cover, it seems The New Republic desperately needs a lesson in subtlety. [Media Mob]

• How fun would it be to throw Donald Trump into the Les Moonves vs. Howard Stern brawl? [Page Six]

• Orioles pitcher Kris Benson sells his wife to FHM. [Mediaweek]

• In the economics of magazine exchange rates, three years of Blender equals one year of Cargo. We wonder how many Details you need to make a GQ? Like, 3.75, maybe? [Ad Age]

• We didn't believe anyone wanted it at first, either, but, Keith Kelly’s “exclusive” of the day tells us what we already know. One last time, everybody, Hartle Media bought Spin. [NYP]

• Franklin Foer somehow managed to change jobs without loosing any blood. Amazing, because he seems kind of like a guy who would get punched in the face a lot. [NYT]