The League

The Nation Apologizes….Sorta

by Mark of New Jersey · November 29, 2010

Katrina vanden Heuvel offers a non-apology apology to John Tyner for allowing her magazine to smear him. By non-apology apology I mean that rather than acknowledge the innuendo in the piece was an outright slander and falsity, she writes simply that: “when Tyner denied any connections to lobbyists and to Koch-funded organizations in an interview, we printed his denial—we didn’t press hard enough to get clarity on his actions and intentions. We should have stopped and done just that, and if Tyner’s story checked out, we should have removed him from the piece.” Of course, she doesn’t acknowledge what everyone else well-knows, which is that Tyner’s “story” is unrefuted.

As for the rest of the well-refuted article, which made a whole host of insinuations and claims about the Koch brothers and civil libertarians more generally, vanden Heuvel’s response isn’t to offer even a non-apology apology, but is instead to double-down:

We have long opposed, and exposed, the continuing encroachments of the national security state, though we also think that those who applauded each sacrifice of liberty for security under the Bush administration should expect to be regarded with skepticism if the presence of a Democrat in the White House suddenly prompts libertarian concerns.

Radley Balko responds to this magnificently here, documenting the lengthy history of libertarian movement (even the evil Koch-funded parts!) opposition to the TSA. Better still, he does what The Nation failed to do, and actually does some research into that publication’s history on the TSA. Let’s just say that the results of that research are less than supportive of vanden Heuvel’s claim that “we have long opposed, and exposed, the continuing encroachments of the national security state.” I shan’t quote from it because Balko’s piece deserves to be read in its entirety.

Barely a day goes by that I don’t thank the FSM that I’m usually on the same side of things as Mr. Balko.

Mark of New Jersey

Mark is a Founding Editor of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, the predecessor of Ordinary Times.

Ken says:

November 29, 2010 at 4:46 pm

Yep, that was an epic takedown. And, for all of The Nation’s sort-of apology, the link to the original hit piece is what they are featuring on their front page.Report
E.C. Gach says:

November 29, 2010 at 5:37 pm

When the Nation get’s new editorial management I might give it another try. Some of it’s cultural reportage and features are interesting, but it’s political commentary is harder to swallow than lead paint.Report
James Hanley says:

November 29, 2010 at 8:27 pm

I’d like to point out one particular bit of Ames’ and Levine’s audacious dishonesty. In their response to Greenwald, they write:

Here is what the article really said: like many Americans, we found the TSA’s intrusive procedures offensive and we are against the invasive pat-downs and attack on our civil liberties. This was a given in our article, and we stated as much.

Just how much of a given was this in their original article, and exactly how clearly did they state it? Try these quotes on for size.

While this issue is certainly important—and offensive—to Americans

OK, they state that the issue is offensive to Americans. They don’t state that they personally found the pat-downs intrusive, invasive, offensive, and an attack on civil liberties. Nowhere in the article do they make any stronger criticism of the pat-downs than they do in this statement. So what else do they say?

let’s take one more look at the TSA hysteria, and re-evaluate if we should continue to simply accept the surface narrative, or consider what we might learn by looking beneath the surface. Because everywhere you look, the alleged victims’ stories often turn out to be false or highly suspicious,

there is clearly enough evidence to call into question the official version of events as a “spontaneous” outbreak of anti-TSA hysteria

What we should not do is assume that, in the midst of the worst recession in decades, when untold thousands of families are being thrown out of their homes in fraudulent foreclosures, that the biggest most pressing issue facing Americans is the “porn scan” at airports.

But don’t ask us, ask Americans themselves: a recent CBS poll found that fewer than one in five Americans object to the TSA’s use of scans and pat-downs. Nevertheless, like the Tea Party libertarian protests that “erupted” “spontaneously” in February 2009, the protests against the TSA, and the media coverage of the spectacle, grips the nation.

So, contra their explicit claim, nowhere do they state that they think the pat-downs are an attack on civil liberties. Instead, they repeatedly pooh-pooh those who object as manufacturing fake “anti-TSA hysteria,” downplay it as not being a “pressing issue” and emphasize that a majority of Americans support it.

In other words, Ames and Levine blatantly lie in their follow-up article. They don’t just spin the truth a bit, or put a favorable interpretation on their previous words. They lie. If vanden Heuvel actually has any interest in demonstrating The Nation‘s integrity, she needs to take serious action.Report
- Mark Thompson in reply to James Hanley says:
  
  November 29, 2010 at 9:39 pm
  
  Yeah, that’s pretty impressive. Usually when a published article reaches a level of dishonesty where there’s actually more lies and smears than any one response is capable of noticing, it’s a good idea to retract it in its entirety.
  
  If vanden Heuvel actually has any interest in demonstrating The Nation‘s integrity… That “If” does a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence.Report