not overtly.
in fact, i'm not sure you're right on this, doug. but since i don't have the facts, i won't comment further.
>Blaming the magazine for what people write elsewhere is a pretty long
>stretch, I'd say.
>
>Doug
i think you're stretching it a bit, doug. no one blames the nation for what people write elsewhere. no one blames the nation for what you publish in LBO.
one can criticize the nation for supporting the work of people who lie out of both sides of their mouths. work that appears on the surface to be antithetical to what the nation purports to stand for, and against. and for not publishing anything which analyses, criticizes, or contradicts genuine garbage a couple of their own writers publish, no matter what the venue.
for example, were you (being an excellent writer) or i to write an article similar to the one WSWS published and submit it to the nation magazine, do you think we'd have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nation to publish something -- no matter how accurate, insightful or constructive -- critical of their fair haired boys? if you do, i have some enron stock i'd like to sell you.
what one can question is the nation's judgement in knowingly employing and covering for writers who are such liars and propagandists. their extra curricular efforts aren't about issues which the nation never treats. so can one conclude the nation has sacred cows, and writers whose biases the nation shares but lacks the courage to publish? yes.
to use a cliche, i'd say the nation's behavior is socially irresponsible.
R