Patterico's Pontifications

7/9/2011

Stengel-gate/National Constitution Center Update: We Got Mail!

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 2:46 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

So as regular readers know, after finding fourteen clear factual errors in Richard Stengel’s June 23rd Time magazine cover story* on the Constitution, I have been on a crusade to embarrass the magazine to correct or retract that story.  I have explained that I consider its publication to be a scandal, both because it appeared as the cover story and because who the author is:

The author is not only the Managing Editor for Time, but he spent two years as President and CEO of the National Constitution Center.  And even today, he works with the National Constitution Center’s Peter Jennings Project for Journalists and the Constitution, whose stated mission is “to help both professional journalists and students interested in journalism understand constitutional issues more deeply.”  That is right.  He is there to help journalists understand the Constitution better.

So I wrote an email to David Eisner, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, asking (1) what Stengel’s role was in the Center, (2) whether they had an official statement about this whole mess, particularly correcting Mr. Stengel’s inaccuracies.

Well, on Friday afternoon, I got this email in response:

from    David Eisner [email omitted]

to         edmd5.20.10@gmail.com

date     Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM

subject Response to email

Dear Mr. Worthing,

Thank you for your email regarding Rick Stengel’s Time magazine cover article on the Constitution. As you’d imagine, the article has stirred up a lot of thoughts from people who care deeply about the Constitution, many critical and many supportive.  I’m sure you’re aware that the issues you raise go to the center of many of the most important current debates around how we view the Constitution.

We’re working to bring some of those thoughts and issues together and will share them on our blog http://blog.constitutioncenter.org in the coming days.

Best,

David E

David Eisner

President and CEO

National Constitution Center

“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Now that seems to be saying, “we’re working on a response.”  Also, reader Ken Weibe wrote to them as well and got this response:

From: “Ashley Berke” [email omitted]

To: “Ken Wiebe” [email omitted]

Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:23:25 -0400

Subject: RE: Stengel Time Article

Dear Mr. Wiebe,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Our CEO David Eisner recently received a similar email and I wanted to share with you his response:

Thank you for your email regarding Rick Stengel’s Time magazine cover article on the Constitution. As you’d imagine, the article has stirred up a lot of thoughts from people who care deeply about the Constitution, many critical and many supportive. I’m sure you’re aware that the issues you raise go to the center of many of the most important current debates around how we view the Constitution.

We’re working to bring some of those thoughts and issues together and will share them on our blog http://blog.constitutioncenter.org in the coming days.

Ashley Berke

Director of Public Relations

National Constitution Center

525 Arch Street, Independence Mall

Philadelphia, PA 19106

So it’s not exactly a form email.  She seems frankly to be referring back to my email, and quoting from the response.

And for what that was worth, this is what Mr. Weibe wrote to her to prompt that response:

From: Ken Wiebe [email omitted]

Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:49 PM

To: PR

Subject: Stengel Time Article

You’re in the public spotlight. Are you going to rise to the occasion, prove your relevancy and allegiance, and respond to the egregious attack on the Constitution by one of *your own members*?

I am sincerely interested (as are many, many others) in what your organization has to say about this terrible article. It is indefensible, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, depending on how you respond (and whether you respond). After that, we will all judge you by the stance you take, and will act accordingly.

In Liberty,

Ken Wiebe

So the takeaway I have is that they are seeking some more time.  There are good, upright and honest reasons for them to need more time.  I have my own personal speculation on what they might consider “due diligence” on this subject, but I won’t share them.  But in my experience, I have also seen people falsely ask for more time, when they were only seeking to try to draw things out in the hopes that anger will fade.  But I always start by giving people the benefit of the doubt and this will be no exception.

Regardless, it means that they know about this controversy, and have at least promised to address it.  And that is an encouraging sign, and may lead to other things.

Stay tuned.

————————–

* Like in my previous post I will no longer be linking directly to the original piece.  I am not going to send him any more hits on his website.  But if you go to my post documenting the fourteen errors in his piece, you will also find a link if you wish to fact-check this post by determining whether Stengel’s piece is as bad as I claim.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

26 Responses to “Stengel-gate/National Constitution Center Update: We Got Mail!”

  1. Don’t bother clicking the link. It is just as bad as claimed. Anyone who supports those who can’t find any references to gun ownership in the Constitution, but can see for certain that abortion is explicitly mentioned, can’t be relied on for anything. Benjamin Franklin is spinning in his grave, just yards away from the Center, probably generating green energy or something.

    dfbaskwill (c021f2)

  2. WOW…you got an automated e-mail response…congrats on hitting the big time…

    JEA (81d63e)

  3. well, even if you believe in made-up rights in the constitution, then you have to agree that the constitution limits the federal government. lol

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  4. Too bad they probably won’t share a list of those supportive readers.

    ∅ (e7577d)

  5. The Peter Jennings thingie…

    “The Project is also shaped by a group of fourteen national leaders in journalism and constitutional law who serve on its Board of Advisors. They are Akhil Amar, Guido Calabresi, Geoffrey Cowan, Jane Eisner, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Alberto Ibargüen, Sherrilyn Ifill, Kayce Freed Jennings, Judith S. Kaye, Ted Koppel, John Lewis, Timothy Lewis, Richard Stengel, and David Westin.”

    Hey, if you ever need to round up 14 lefties for a dinner party or something…look no further.

    Dave Surls (b57ae5)

  6. So the National Constitution Center is a leftist organization? Does this mean it is funded with our tax dollars? I have a feeling those questions are not even necessary.

    PatAZ (ef780c)

  7. I think we are going to be the victim of a “four corner stall”.

    They have no intention of trying to defend the indefensible.

    AD-RtR/OS! (4b35a7)

  8. Hey, if you ever need to round up 14 lefties for a dinner party or something…look no further.

    Basically. a lot of familiar names on that list, too.

    It’s fine and dandy that lefties want to advocate their political views. What bugs me is how damn stubborn they are about insisting they are objective. I mean, Richard’s spin on the constitution is hardcore left. The real problem is that it’s provably wrong, but it’s provably wrong because he’s trying to create propaganda. As soon as these guys admit they are hyperpartisan, the better. For them, too. They shouldn’t act like there’s something shameful in advocating from a position of personal preferences and politics. It’s actually inevitable.

    And hey, Aaron got Time to promise a response. That’s great news.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  9. “Please stand by while we formulate a way to defend the indefensible.”

    Icy Texan (73cea7)

  10. Aaron, Ms. Eisner is a hard-core lefty who used to (and may still occasionally) write a column for the Philadelphia Stinquirer. I think I’ll write the Center over the weekend here to try to keep the pressure on them. I’d suggest y’all do the same.

    bob (either orr) (6713b4)

  11. But . . . but . . . there’s only one view* on the Constitution – ours!

    ——————————————

    *Unless you’re referring to those nasty racist extremist Teabaggers and right-wing Christofascist nutcases like Sarah Palin, who thinks something important happened in 1773. WTF?! Those don’t count . . . because we said so! And anyway creative writing teachers know much more about the Constitution than anyone else!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (e08c48)

  12. Ibarguen, is from my neck of the woods, basically meh, Westin, I remember from immediately after 9/11 when he said the Pentagon, was a ‘legitimate’ military target’, most of the others are suitably obscure, except for Koppel, but they evince little constitutional understanding,

    ian cormac (d380ce)

  13. We’ve discovered on another blog I frequent, that a certain long time troll, actually he’s more at the uruk hai orc level, is a political science professor, who uses one of Amar’s texts as a primer
    in at least one of his classes,

    ian cormac (d380ce)

  14. Just cuz people have a famous name and/or spent years toiling in journalism or academia and now sit on a board does not mean they know sh#t about the Constitution.

    But, the National Constitution Center is a physical museum building on Philadelphia’s Independence Mall. The people who visit Philly to follow Ben Franklin’s footsteps, visit Betsy Ross’s House, see the Liberty Bell and walk through Constitution Hall usually also stop in at the National Constitution Center. I would venture a guess that they know their paying visitors are likely to be from a broad cross-section of the political and geographic spectrum (with a strong likelihood of even more Repubs than Dems). As such, they have a much bigger problem to contend with (and to resolve) concerning the bru-haha over Stengel’s article than does Time Magazine with their lefty subscription list.

    I think additional polite and civil communication from concerned citizens to the Constitution Center’s management is a good idea– to show that there are many people quite concerned that Stengel appeared to be representing them (The National Constitution Center) and their views.

    elissa (09dbe4)

  15. Interesting that our constitutional center was founded by someone who was never subject to it

    EricPWJohnson (2921b6)

  16. Who does the above “our” refer to?

    JD (318f81)

  17. Dustin

    slight correct: time hasn’t promised a response. The NCC has.

    now… i would be very surprised if they would put out a response without talking to Stengel himself, if only out of professional courtesy. But Time is still firmly in the “if we ignore this, then maybe it will go away” mode.

    heh.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  18. slight correct: time hasn’t promised a response. The NCC has.

    Oh damn. My mistake. Time really needs to at least acknowledge this controversy. Their cover story was unbelievably dishonest. At this point, I think their lack of reaction is actually more embarrassing than the article’s mistakes. And that’s saying a lot.

    Energy Secretary and practiced imbecile Chu (b7410e)

  19. ^ Obviously the above was me

    Dustin (b7410e)

  20. People should compare and cntrast ehrenstein’s tone here, and at his blog. It is informative. He is never more than a comment away from going postal.

    JD (318f81)

  21. Thanks for the update, Aaron. Keep up the good work.

    But note the first-layer of defense: “[T]he issues you raise go to the center of many of the most important current debates around how we view the Constitution.”

    Seriously? There’s a debate about whether our federal government is one of strictly limited, enumerated powers? That was indeed a hot topic in roughly 1786 (plus or minus three). But then it was settled when we ratified the Constitution.

    They want to turn this into “You say ‘to-mah-to’ while we say ‘to-MAY-to,’ but it’s all the same thing.”

    It’s not the same thing at all. The entire premise of your critique — which you have been consistent and clear in stating — is that the errors you’re pointed out are not part of any on-going national debate. They’re not matters of interpretation or nuance. They’re objective facts that Stengel repeatedly misstated.

    Why do they need two more weeks, or two more minutes, to admit that?

    My confident inference is that this response was not made in good faith. And the next one you get will almost assuredly be more vague, and even less responsive.

    Beldar (3895f0)

  22. Beldar

    we’ll see, but i am holding fire on alot of issues related to the NCC. if they try to cover for them, i start releasing the hounds…

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  23. Ooh, JEA. How do you keep that rapier wit in check?

    Icy Texan (f33932)

  24. It would be interesting to see if their classroom materials are as rife with propaganda and/or errors

    ian cormac (d380ce)

  25. Comment by ian cormac — 7/11/2011 @ 5:02 am

    You’ve got me thinking. What are the chances a few bucks from Obama’s Stimulus swindle found their way (via Democrat earmarks?) into an NCC “educational project” to inoculate public school kids against Constitutional facts Dems consider obstacles to a “progressive” future.

    If Leftists are willing to spend taxpayer’s money to buy guns for Mexican drug dealers, they probably wouldn’t hesitate to dip into Stimulus funds to fabricate phony US history.

    ropelight (a1fbb3)

  26. rope

    i don’t know about stimulus, but yes, we are paying (in part) for this.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0890 secs.