by Michael D. Setty (metty@publictransit.us)
Michelle Obama, wife of Senator Barack Obama, was featured as "cover girl" by National Review on its issue dated April 21, 2008, with the headline Mrs. Grievance and Her Discontent.
We (at the www.publictransit.us blog) know rather little about the writer, Mark Steyn (a self-described "conservative polemicist" and "talk radio" host) and not as much as many Kossacks about the subject, Michelle Obama. But we do know a thing or two about the "structural dishonesty" practiced by National Review.
Structurally dishonest - a term we at the public transit blog www.publictransit.us would like to claim credit for - was used by blogger "Cog Pseudonymous" with reference to certain "policy institutes," also known as "right-wing think tanks." See
http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/...
National Review, which was founded by the late William F. Buckley, Jr., describes itself (to potential advertisers) as follows:
National Review and [National Review Online] are America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion. Both magazine and web site are the benchmark vehicles for reaching those Republicans/conservatives who shape opinion on the important issues, and both reach an affluent, educated, and highly responsive audience of corporate and government leaders, the financial elite, educators, journalists, community and association leaders, as well as engaged activists all across America. (http://www.nationalreview.com/...)
Perhaps this intended readership isn’t much concerned with "structural dishonesty" in general, or National Review’s version in particular.
"The road to nowhere" was the title of an article published by National Review in its issue dated November 16, 1992. This was a critique of a bond issue submitted earlier that month to California voters, to finance urban and intercity rail expansion. The article contains the following passage:
Indeed, new rail projects consistently end up with lower ridership and higher costs than promised. That's been the case in San Jose, Baltimore, Detroit, San Francisco, and Atlanta--and, most recently, on the new Blue Line from Long Beach to Los Angeles, which rumbles along with near-empty cars. From http://findarticles.com/...
The writer’s dig at the Los Angeles Blue Line ... near-empty cars ... is false; obviously - and stupidly - false: http://thetransitcoalition.us/...
The Blue Line was completed less than two years before the article was published. Ridership "back then" was a fraction of that carried today; even so, the line was already known as the busiest U.S. light-rail line not part of a "legacy system" such as those in Boston, San Francisco, or Philadelphia.
We wondered whether the unnamed writer - or the magazine - had any particular desire to be taken seriously, at least among those who believe that facts (in addition to rarefied ideology) are relevant to the real world. One of us sent a response, citing Blue Line ridership statistics and providing sources. This also included a "counter-dig." The letter noted that a high proportion of Blue Line passengers are ethnic minorities, and speculated that perhaps these people were "invisible minorities" as far as the writer was concerned.
National Review sent a response, as follows:
We are sorry to hear that you disagreed with our assessment of the railway. We are, however, grateful to have your opinion as it will help the editors in making future decisions.
(Letter dated November 17, 1992, to Leroy W. Demery, Jr., signed by Richard Samuelson, Associate Editor, National Review.)
Samuelson seems to suggest that editors might take care not to publish unfounded claims on this particular subject. However, Samuelson also makes clear - without saying so directly - that National Review would not publish a correction, Demery’s letter, or a condensed version thereof.
National Review could not bring itself to publish a dissenting letter, much less a correction, regarding a "talking point" in one of its opinion pieces. More significant to the matter of "structural dishonesty" is the apparent inability, or unwillingness, of National Review editors to distinguish between facts and opinions.
We know, and can document, what National Review got wrong - and declined puckishly to correct - about the Los Angeles Blue Line. We can only wonder what National Review and its online counterpart have gotten wrong - and will refuse tenaciously to correct - about Michelle Obama. As well as her husband.