I always care what William Hogeland has to say, even or perhaps especially when I disagree with him. But minus "liberaloid" I agree here with almost every word, and I think Serwer and Atlantic should be called out for this. Too bad they have the option to erase their errors, instead of correcting them. Bet Prof. Claudine Gay wishes she had had the same option.
I ended my 40-year subscription to the Atlantic a year ago because the magazine had descended to pure propaganda. And, as for Ross Asshat, I'd sooner believe Homer Simpson.
Good call out on this, Bill! And also good news that the mighty Atlantic had to submit a correction. Looking forward to your book on Hamilton. Best, Sandy Lloyd
Does that in any way change your assessment of Serwer's integrity? (Should add: Adam's a friend of mine, and while he can make errors, as any of us can and I certainly have, I have great respect both for his intellect and honesty.
I noted the absurdity of the correction in my post. It's misleading both about what the Serwer piece really said about the flag and about the facts as I've explained them both in my book and in the post. Anyone can of course make errors; what went on here, and is still going on here, utterly bewilders me. My point isn't about anyone's integrity but about the pervasive conjunction of bad argument and bad history.
Serwer recasts his argument so that it more closely follows what you say above about the incoherence of Douthat's case. That choice makes sense, given your work. He could have been more explicit in the error acknowledgment, but one specific grievance above--misquoting you--is no longer in the piece, and the historical argument Serwer makes is more modest, and hence, to me at least, not "bad" in the sense you argue above. YMMV.
I reserved judgment about how and why the original misquote occured. This, however--"This article previously stated that it was not clear if one of the flags flown by the Whiskey Rebels was their flag, but it was in fact theirs."--is simply false. The article didn't previously make any statement at all suggesting that it wasn't clear whether "one of the flags flown by the Whiskey Rebels" was "theirs"( I can't imagine what that would even mean); the article said that I'd written that the six-striped flag referred to by Douthat wasn't a rebel flag, when in fact I'd written the opposite. A "correction" supposedly conceding something that neither I nor anyone else could possibly have said--that "it" (one of the flags?) was, in fact, "theirs"--has nothing to do with the issue I raised, is gibberish in any event, and can only add to my dismay over what must be editorial chaos, at best, at the Atlantic.
I always care what William Hogeland has to say, even or perhaps especially when I disagree with him. But minus "liberaloid" I agree here with almost every word, and I think Serwer and Atlantic should be called out for this. Too bad they have the option to erase their errors, instead of correcting them. Bet Prof. Claudine Gay wishes she had had the same option.
I ended my 40-year subscription to the Atlantic a year ago because the magazine had descended to pure propaganda. And, as for Ross Asshat, I'd sooner believe Homer Simpson.
Good call out on this, Bill! And also good news that the mighty Atlantic had to submit a correction. Looking forward to your book on Hamilton. Best, Sandy Lloyd
Serwer corrected piece and acknowledged the error at the end of the page. You can see it here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/trump-enablers-january-6-resurrection/677187/
Does that in any way change your assessment of Serwer's integrity? (Should add: Adam's a friend of mine, and while he can make errors, as any of us can and I certainly have, I have great respect both for his intellect and honesty.
I noted the absurdity of the correction in my post. It's misleading both about what the Serwer piece really said about the flag and about the facts as I've explained them both in my book and in the post. Anyone can of course make errors; what went on here, and is still going on here, utterly bewilders me. My point isn't about anyone's integrity but about the pervasive conjunction of bad argument and bad history.
Serwer recasts his argument so that it more closely follows what you say above about the incoherence of Douthat's case. That choice makes sense, given your work. He could have been more explicit in the error acknowledgment, but one specific grievance above--misquoting you--is no longer in the piece, and the historical argument Serwer makes is more modest, and hence, to me at least, not "bad" in the sense you argue above. YMMV.
I reserved judgment about how and why the original misquote occured. This, however--"This article previously stated that it was not clear if one of the flags flown by the Whiskey Rebels was their flag, but it was in fact theirs."--is simply false. The article didn't previously make any statement at all suggesting that it wasn't clear whether "one of the flags flown by the Whiskey Rebels" was "theirs"( I can't imagine what that would even mean); the article said that I'd written that the six-striped flag referred to by Douthat wasn't a rebel flag, when in fact I'd written the opposite. A "correction" supposedly conceding something that neither I nor anyone else could possibly have said--that "it" (one of the flags?) was, in fact, "theirs"--has nothing to do with the issue I raised, is gibberish in any event, and can only add to my dismay over what must be editorial chaos, at best, at the Atlantic.