Friday, April 27, 2007

The American Conservative

editor. Not interested in facts

"Alexander Konetzki is a liberal who decided to start his journalism career as an assistant editor at The American Conservative."


He explains why he quit.

the editor Scott McConnell said,

"Yeah, look, Alexander, this matter has already been decided. The piece is being published as it is." I pointed out that I had read the book, and Sailer's characterization of Obama was factually incorrect. "I have too many other things to worry about," Scott said coldly. "Steve Sailer is a longtime friend of the magazine, and if you and he read a book differently, well, I'll take his reading over yours any day."



The debate is about what is written in a book which is physically present in the office. The editor decided based on who is a "longtime friend of the magazine" without glancing at the text of the book.

"“We have to show our readers that we’re a conservative magazine,” Kara often told me, “not the NationLite.” Indeed, they did."

OK. But does conservative mean racist, uninterested in facts, or both ?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Though I make it a point never to read conservative, small "c," tripe, I happened to find a copy of the article in question, I do not choose to mention the publication or the author, and was stunned at the astounding prejudice in a quick look.

I would have forgotten the article had you not commented. I know nothing of the writer or the publication, but the article in question could not have been more mean-spirited or offensive.

The prejudice in the article would make for a pathological exhibit could I tolerate such exhibits.

anne

Anonymous said...

Hopefully, since I am angry, this publication and the writer are truly aberrant, but I may be naive.

anne

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?ex=1331611200&en=5fb23776ba644bc2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 15, 2007

Clinton Says Some G.I.'s in Iraq Would Stay if She Took Office
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing....

anne

Anonymous said...

Again, let me make it perfectly clear how much I detest American Conservative and Steve Sailer for the wretched prejudice they loose. Just to name names, when naming is due. Wretched prejudice. Yuch. Am I being clear enough?

anne

Anonymous said...

Ah, this is Pat Buchanan’s magazine. No wonder, this rot can be published and not have every person associated severely warned and disciplined at the least. This was no off-the-cuff moment, but calculated considered Jim Crowism. This was Jim Crowism at the worst.