Larisa Alexandrovna: Journalism Interrupted - 'The Nation' Fail (TSA Article/Smear Controversy)

[Hissyspit]

Larisa Alexandrovna is back to writing on her blog, her work put on pause due to her mother's health crisis and Larisa's move to L.A., now completed. Here is her response concerning the 'The Nation' article controversy (as explained in sabrina 1's post from earlier this morning): http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2010/11/journalism-interrupted-the-nation-fail.html

November 25, 2010

Journalism Interrupted: The Nation Fail

The Nation has been a true and trusted friend of mine for years. I know the editors and many of the writers and have nothing but respect for their work. Most importantly, I have great respect for their consistent adherence to the highest journalistic standards.

Yesterday, however, The Nation ran a piece that is nothing short of character assassination, serving no newsworthy purpose, and rightfully criticized by others as a barely disguised political hit-piece.

The article, entitled "TSAstroturf: The Washington Lobbyists and Koch-Funded Libertarians Behind the TSA Scandal" by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine essentially implies that the entire libertarian movement is nothing more than a front for the billionaire Koch brothers and their corporatist allies -- and by extension that libertarian protesters and groping victims are all hired pawns representing these interests. But do Ames and Levine implicate the American Civil Liberties Union in this project as well? After all, the David and Charles Koch each donated $10 million to the ACLU, an organization which is also opposing the TSA's nude scanners and full body frisks.

This article offers nothing in the way of proof for its allegations, but provides plenty of speculation and bizarre claims of guilt-by-association, beginning with the very first paragraph:

Does anyone else sense something strange is going on with the apparently spontaneous revolt against the TSA? This past week, the media turned an "ordinary guy," 31-year-old Californian John Tyner, who blogs under the pseudonym "Johnny Edge," into a national hero after he posted a cell phone video of himself defending his liberty against the evil government oppressors in charge of airport security.

The writers fail to grasp something basic about society it seems. When people are outraged, they tend to be galvanized very quickly. Many people who respects individual rights, regardless of political leanings, oppose the TSA's new and extremely invasive security policies.

Consider for a moment what the issue is. The government of "we the people" demanded that the "we" that it is supposed to represent give up our rights to our most sacrosanct property -- our bodies -- in order to have free passage across this supposed free nation.

MORE BELOW THE FOLD

In essence, my ability to travel in the United States of America is contingent on me allowing a government agent to either see me naked or feel me up. This outrages me. This outrages everyone I know. The level of invasiveness is the galvanizing factor. So no, I don't find it "strange" that there was a "spontaneous revolt against the TSA." I would find it strange if there was instead the sound of crickets in response to such clear and obscene acts of government overreach.

Ames and Levine are suspicious, but suspicions alone do not make for good journalism. Moreover, unfounded and unsupported suspicions -- like those on display in this piece -- do not even make for a good op-ed.

They continue:

While this issue is certainly important—and offensive—to Americans, we are nonetheless skeptical about how and why this story turned into a national movement. In fact, this whole campaign feels a bit like déjà-vu: As the first reporters to expose the Tea Party as an Astroturf PR campaign funded by FreedomWorks and Koch-related front groups back in February, 2009, we see many of the same elements driving the current "rebellion" against the TSA: Koch-related libertarians, Washington lobbyists and PR operatives posing as "ordinary citizens," and suspicious fake-grassroots outrage relentlessly promoted in the same old right-wing echo chamber.

Perhaps Ames and Levine took a dinner discussion they were having and simply assumed that it would make for good journalism. Not so. They ask and answer their own question and yet continue to express skepticism. They note that "the issue" is "offensive to Americans" and then ask "how and why this story turned into a national movement" all in the same sentence.

Moreover, the implication that the genuine outrage of the populace over the TSA touch-and-feel scandal is somehow a mirage fabricated by special interests, devalues the real concern that people have about having their rights violated.

In any case, I am certain members of the Tea Party movement are indeed outraged over what the TSA is doing, but so are members of every political and ideological leaning. Liberals are outraged, but the national outrage and outcry is not a liberal creation. Conservatives are also outraged, but neither could they claim ownership of this national response. The common denominator here is individual rights, which as I noted earlier, most Americans feel strongly about. I am outraged, but hardly a member of the Tea Party movement.

All of that aside, how is this in any way journalism? It is suspicion first and speculation after, based on a straw-man of political origins and presented as solid news reporting. Yet The Nation published this? Why?

Then comes the character assassination:

So far, all we know about "ordinary guy" John Tyner III, the freedom fighter who took on the TSA agents, is that, according to a friendly hometown profile in the San Diego Union-Tribune, "he leans strongly libertarian and doesn't believe in voting. TSA security policy, he asserts 'isn't Republican and it isn't Democratic.'" (Emphasis added.)

Tyner attended private Christian schools in Southern California and lives in Oceanside, a Republican stronghold next to Camp Pendleton, the largest Marine Corps base on the West Coast.

So Tyner leans strongly libertarian -- and the point is? Tyner does not believe in voting -- and the point is? Then they go on to dig into his past, where he went to school (Gulp, Christian schools!) and note that he happens to live in a Republican stronghold. So? What is the point? What does this prove?

I lived in South Florida for many years, a state that bleeds red to the core and even had a Bush as governor. Does that make me a Bush loyalist or a Republican? Does my geography marry me to an ideology or a political movement? Florida happens to have several military installations as well. Does that somehow implicate me in something? What is the actual point here other than guilt-by geography?

What is Tyner's crime other than he is openly a libertarian (they still don't tell us if he is a member of any party)? This is a philosophy which values individual rights. Would it not make sense for him to be outraged by the TSA invasion of our bodies? Do his philosophical leanings somehow lessen his right to be outraged?

The bad journalism continues:

At least one local TSA administrator wondered if Tyner hadn't come to the airport prepared to create a scandal.

At least one? Is that two, three, how many? What is the name of this "one" TSA agent? The anonymous TSA agent aside, their observation is telling in that it states the obvious. "Wondered"? The whole purpose of a protest or a show of civil disobedience is to create a scandal, is it not? So again, what is the point of this assertion and where are the specifics?

Ames and Levine then go on -- at length -- to describe another "libertarian" who also protested the TSA, which turned out to be a hoax apparently. Yet they fail to tie Tyner to this other person. The only connection -- if one can call it that -- is that Tyner and the other protester happen to be (and we don't even know this to be true) similar in their philosophical and/or political leanings. Again, guilt-by philosophical association and maybe not even. The point is? What is the point?

They spend an inordinate amount of time describing the travels of this other "libertarian" and her connections to -- yikes! -- yet other libertarians, without offering anything other than speculation, conjecture, and the implication that the libertarian movement is somehow involved in these dealings -- whatever these dealings are. In any case, let me re-state the obvious again: one would expect that a person who values individual rights would indeed be outraged by what the TSA is doing.

Ames and Levine conflate all libertarians with lobbyists and corporate interests, yet prove nothing that implicates anyone in the libertarian movement of being involved in any sort of dirty trickery on behalf of the powerful.

They attack a protester for his philosophical views (which actually are in line with his actions) and reduce him to a geographically contaminated paid shill. They assert, but fail to prove any substantive connection of anyone to anything. Most importantly, they seem to be defending the TSA from what they call "national hysteria."

Yes, I am part of that hysteria. What do my credentials have to be in order for my outrage to count as valid?

Finally, let me add something about the response that Ames and Levine published in answer to Glenn Greenwald's criticism.

In general, the response offers nothing in support of their original allegations and attempts to re-write an article already written. If the original article needs to be explained with a second article, then clearly the original article is lacking.

My issue with their response is primarily with Ames' need to bring Levine's Soviet background into his defense from a valid criticism of their sloppy attack on those who would oppose the TSA:

My co-author, Yasha Levine—whose grandfather survived Stalin’s GULAGs-- fled the Soviet Union to America to escape anti-Semitism. So we believe that even Greenwald can understand what a gigantic bummer, for lack of a better word, it’s been for us to come back to America, and to find ourselves attacked and frankly slandered for being alleged government oppressors.

Defending the TSA in this case does in fact put Ames and Levine on the wrong side of an issue that defies party affiliations and is essentially a core principle of any free society. If they don't want to be seen as defenders of the TSA, then perhaps they should stop defending the TSA.

But what is most distasteful is that a criticism of the bad journalism on display in their original piece has somehow been made into an attack on a grandson of a Jewish Soviet refugee. Seriously? What does Levine's heritage have to do with a valid criticism of an article he wrote? Nothing. Relying on the victim card only further illustrates the lack of ethics on display here. The Nation owes Tyner an apology at the very least.

Mods: Printed in Entirety w/ Permission

[JackRiddler]

1. Greatness from Larisa

[RufusTFirefly]

2. So the fallout from the whole TSA Grope-Gate will be...

... privatization of airport security and elimination of a 145-year-old liberal magazine.

[drm604]

4. How do you figure that? n/t

[sabrina 1]

9. What utter nonsense. The fallout should be the disbanding of

Bush's police state apparatus, the agencies, the spying equipment, all of it, entirely. Leave nothing to privatize. We didn't need it before 9/11 and we don't need it now.

The American people need to decide are they willing to accept the fact that there is a remote chance that there WILL be a terror attack, just as there will be plane crashes, automobile accidents, murders and death by lack of Health Care coverage and that there is no way to be 100% safe. Or are they so cowardly that they would rather live in a police state just to 'feel' safe from the least of those threats?

The Clinton administration prevented many potentilly devastating terror attacks because of good intelligence and a WH that paid attention. There has always been terror and there always will be and once in a blue moon, our intel agencies won't be able to stop one in time. But that is a fact of life with or without the police state tactics. So how about we maintain our freedoms and elect responsible politicians who will do everything possible to deal with any potential threat as happened when Clinton was president. It can be done.

You are repeating the scare tactic being spread around that we need to defend this oppressive agency because if we don't, the Right will privatize it. MORE FEAR!! Let's always react to what we think the Right might do. Let's never, ever act responsibly regardless of what the Right wants to do.

When something is repeated as often as this meme 'the right will privatize it', it becomes propaganda. The Right will have a very hard doing anything if Democrats would just take the lead and stand up fiercely against them. Why don't they?

You live in a state of constant fear if you wish. I have no intentions of doing that and I truly wish I belonged to a party that had some spine and didn't fall, quivering like a frightened bird, to the ground every time Republicans say BOO!

WE were able to stop these machines and other abuses under Bush. The left successfully ended the 'enhanced pat-downs' that were tried in 2004. Now that we have Democrats in power, we seem to be able to do nothing. Maybe we are better off in the minority after all. We certainly accomplished more in the area of issuesl like this.

[RufusTFirefly]

23. Complex thought

Shocking as it may sound, it is quite possible to vehemently oppose "enhanced pat downs," not live in fear (I strongly support Franklin's quote about liberty and security), and yet still predict that the fallout from this whole controversy will be the privatization of airport security and the crippling of The Nation magazine.

But it requires an ability to think in shades other than just black and white.

For example, although I vehemently opposed the railroading of Bill Clinton after the so-called Lewinsky Scandal, that did not mean I supported infidelity. Nor did it mean I was a fan of Clinton's quasi-Republican policies.

My concern about privatization and the Nation come precisely from my dismay at the tendency to paint issues as either black or white and to search for simple scapegoats for complex problems.

[sabrina 1]

24. Why do you think that we had to wait for Rightwingers to come up

with the idea of Privatization? Some airports already have contracts with private security firms. So, again, why is this being presented as a boogie man that MIGHT happen if the public objects to the TSA's tactics? It is NOT new.

Did you really think that a police state apparatus instituted by Republicans was not planned to get public funds directed to private industry?

On TSA's own website they provide information about what is called the Screening Partnership Program a program which partners the TSA with private security firms.

All the policies set in motion by the Bush administration included getting their hands on tax payer dollars. If you're worried about privatization, it's way too late. Education funds, Health care funds, security funds, military contracts for Mercenaries etc.

What did Democrats do to turn back these policies over the past two years? It's a bit late to be worried about privatization. The issue is ending these policies. But Democrats seem no more interested in doing so than Republicans. So the only way to stop all of it, is for the people to be so outraged that eventually they will no longer tolerate the direction in which this country is going.

The recent outrage over these scanners, which is NOT new btw, has caused some concern to those pushing these policies on the public. But if they succeed in dividing the people once again, the march towards totalitarianism will proceed with only a slight interruption.

[The abyss]

27. Agree 100%

The entire domestic "insecurity" apparatus should be thrown into the trash can.

[drm604]

3. K&R

Good one from Larisa.

[leveymg]

5. Larisa's right. The Nation article was an unsubstantiated smear against Tyner.

A couple weeks ago, I also considered writing such an "expose" of Mr. Tyner, but decided against it after reading several months of his blogs and doing some other checking. It's my impression that he's a principled, intelligent, and articulate libertarian, and much of his anti-statist, anti-authoritarian views would be consistent with many of ours here at DU.

I do, however, agree with the authors of The Nation article that Tyner probably planned the incident that has garnered him so much attention, and the Right-wing has exploited it, apparently for its own partisan political gain, and Tyner did afterwards appear on bookings arranged for him by Right-wing media. He blogged critically about the agency's procedures on several occasions in the weeks prior to his recorded encounter with TSA at John Wayne Airport in San Diego.

Nonetheless, without any proof that he had ties to Koch Brothers or the Teabaggers before the event, the profile in The Nation was unfair to him, poor journalism, and the publication should issue Mr. Tyner an apology.

[Major Hogwash]

20. So, he was grandstanding to make a point, right?

Not that it is going to change anything, but that's what I understood he was doing.

[blackspade]

30. And that is a problem, why?

The whole point of protesting is to grandstand and call attention to yourself.
It is called protesting, and used to be thought of positively by most members of DU.

[truedelphi]

32. + 1. n/t

[PSPS]

6. What Alexandrovna is describing can also be found right here on DU

When this latest outrage of the TSA came to light, DU was awash with its defenders. Furthermore, at least some of the "liberal talking heads," Ed Shultz among them, were downplaying the outrageous nature of it, dismissing it as "no big whoop."

I concluded that there were two possible motivations:

1. They're reacting reflexively merely because Obama is president and they feel compelled to defend anything that happens during his term, especially if it is derided by anyone on the right; or,

2. They've started accepting such outrages after living in a de-facto police state for the last nine years.

What everyone should consider is that this whole naked/sexual groping thing is taken right out of the torture guidelines designed by the bush administration and used at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and "black sites."

Just last year, secret Bush administration memos were released that show that the Bush Justice Department had approved abuse and torture methods including forced nudity and sexual humiliation because it "contributed to an escalating 'de-humanization' of the detainees and set the stage for additional and more severe abuses to occur."

In other words, this is just another step in the incremental destruction of all of our rights as citizens. Many little steps have been taken -- so small as to not tip the scale of outrage individually -- ever since the Bush coup. This one was just a little bigger than the past ones and they are trying hard to make it "stick" so they can proceed to the next incremental outrage.

And if you're still considering this naked/groping thing a necessary step "to keep us safe," consider this: If a "terrorist" wanted to "attack us," all they would have to do is blow themselves up while waiting in the TSA security line before going through any detectors of any kind at all. They would kill more people than on any airline, and nobody would ever fly after that. But they haven't. Why?

In fact, as someone else pointed out, a "terrorist" could easily hijack a gas truck, wire it with explosives, and drive it into a shopping mall. But they haven't. Why?

There are many scenarios one can imagine.

Why?

It certainly isn't because of nude scanners and sexual humiliation.

Think about it.

[snagglepuss]

7. Well said. nt

[sabrina 1]

12. Excellent, agree with everything you said. Most disturbing

to me was to see Democrats now defending what they have been fighting for eight years of Bush. As to the reasons, I believe it is both of the choices you presented. Party loyalty, it will be the death of this country.

[rhett o rick]

31. We have been lucky to live in a relatively democratic country. Many people cant wait

to give up our liberties for a promise of safety. Bob Altemeyer would tell us we live among many authoritarians. I prefer to call them bullies. We live in a country obsessed with bullying. We, as a country, will spend obscene amounts on "defense" (code for offense). Most of our tax dollars go to the bully fund. We are obsessed with bully sports. Love to see football players put each other out of the game with injuries. Our idea of a basketball "dream team" was one that would totally dominate and humiliate the other basketball teams of the world. We are a nation of bullies. Now some think bullies are the tough guys (supposedly) on the playground that push the weaker kids around. I agree, but those that hid behind them and egg them on are also bullies. And that's what we have in America. North Korea is acting tough, it must be time to show them who is the biggest bully. We certainly showed Hussein. Funny how, in his case, we made our own puppet bully, then turned on him to show how tough we are.

I probably lost everyone and didnt make my point.

We are a nation of bullies and bullies are cowards that will gladly give up liberty for security.

[Swamp Rat]

8. k&r for la_la

[Gravel Democrat]

10. puntapié y recomendamos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

[bluesmail]

11. Happy to hear she wasn't TSA'd. Great writings from a fearless woman writer,

La_La_La_La_La Great Writings.

[Luminous Animal]

13. I like Larisa but did whe wake up from a turkey coma and rewrite yesterdays Greenwald response?

[Hissyspit]

17. This is from yesterday.

Nov. 25. I only just posted it tonight.

[TheKentuckian]

14. Great write up

[Mimosa]

15. "When people are outraged, they tend to be galvanized very quickly."

Yes. And opposition to our being conditioned to 'follow orders' is coming from the right, the left and the libertarians.

[Cleita]

16. Thank the stars!

She just seemed to have fallen off the face of the Earth. I'm glad she's back. America needs more journalists like her.

[sabrina 1]

18. She put this very well:

The writers fail to grasp something basic about society it seems. When people are outraged, they tend to be galvanized very quickly. Many people who respects individual rights, regardless of political leanings, oppose the TSA's new and extremely invasive security policies.

It was wonderful to see unity across the board on this issue. As Larissa says, 'when people are outraged, they tend to be galvanized very quickly'. Exactly, my Republican family and friends are genuinely outraged over this and didn't like it any better when Bush tried it.

[Matariki]

19. k&r

"Consider for a moment what the issue is. The government of "we the people" demanded that the "we" that it is supposed to represent give up our rights to our most sacrosanct property -- our bodies -- in order to have free passage across this supposed free nation."

[remember2000forever]

21. Must We Always Be Divided Into Red And Blue?

Even when we have a common enemy?

[Poboy]

22. k&r

[Radical Activist]

25. "This outrages everyone I know."

That's because the people in her social circle all fly. Most people in mine don't. My friends have other very serious issues we care about that continue to be ignored while the media hypes a story because it impacts them personally. I don't let the corporate press tell me what I'm supposed to be most concerned about this week.

And no shit the libertarian movement is nothing but a front for millionaires and billionaires. It always has been.

[sabrina 1]

28. And you completely miss the whole point. You really think this

bi-partisan outrage that has been going on since Bush first set up this police state apparatus, is about 'flying'? This outrage is about the further destruction of rights. You don't have to be a frequent flyer to care about such things, quaint though they may be to some people. We managed to stop Bush at the airport scanner/patdown stage until now. We didn't stop most of what he was doing, but that was one small victory, now gone thanks to this administration.

Are you aware of the successes Civil Liberties groups had, until last year, keeping those Constitutional violating practices, the machines, the 'enhanced pat-downs' etc out of our airports?

Did you support Democrats who succeeded along with other citizens who actually do believe that Constitution is not just 'a piece of paper' in stopping these exact same 'pat-downs' when Bush tried them in 2004?

And do you really believe that all Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Conservatives are represented by the Glenn Beck fringes?

How sad to see you fall for the lie that those on the right, people like John Tyner, who was badly smeared by the Nation of all publications, are not genuinely opposed to the creeping totalitarianism started by Bush and continuing unabated under Democrats, in this country?

I have been part of this fight since Bush first tried to do what this administration has now succeeded in doing. Am I being funded by the Koch Brothers? Were you FOR these practices at our airports when Bush was president? Or not and are only FOR it now because our team is doing it?

People like John Tyner was falsely accused of having such ties, without a shred of evidence and the accusation came from the left, now retracted.

Please present your evidence that this outrage is first, NEW regarding these machines, and second that every single Republican, Conservative and Libertarian now outraged were not equally outraged when Bush was doing it?

My family members who are Republican are not receiving checks from the Koch brothers, they probably never heard of them, yet this is one area where we have been able to agree over the past ten years of Bush assaults on our Constitutional rights. How do you explain that if the outrage is not legitimate?

I even know people who have left the Republican Party over these abuses and are now Independents.

I am very glad to see the outrage continue and cross political lines as it has in the past, as apparently rather than start turning back Bush's abuses, Democrats have only 'enhanced' them. Now overturning years of work to keep those scanners and pat-downs out of our airports and succeeding where Bush failed. We now have to start all over again on that particular issue. Thank you Democrats for your support for Bush's policies. Chertoff thanks you! :eyes:

[The abyss]

26. Thank you for posting! Recommend!

[blackspade]

29. Awesome reply!

This is another attempt of the right wing to 'steal' the high ground on an issue that the left has been all over for the last 6 years.
Unfortunately some of our own outlets have slurped too heavily from the partisan kool-aid jug.