“Politically dubious” and in “poor taste”?: Salvage magazine responds to my challenge about Jamie Allison’s ‘Disaster Islamism’ article
by Ian Sinclair
7 April 2017
Below is a recent email exchange I had with the editor of Salvage magazine, starting with an email I wrote to them highlighting two factual errors in Jamie Allinson’s ‘Disaster Islamism’ article, and asking for a correction to be posted.
I don’t normally post email correspondence on a public platform. However, as the Editor was emailing in a professional capacity and as I have been accused of being “politically dubious” and acting in “poor taste”, I thought it is important people understand the kind of arguments the Editor of Salvage magazine makes.
5 April 2017 email received from the Editor of Salvage magazine:
You have contested claims that Jamie makes in his piece. Such is the nature of disagreement. We do not accept your assertion that these constitute factual errors. You disagree with Jamie’s analysis of the available data, and you have responded in your own post, as is your right. We have no intention of ‘correcting’ Jamie’s piece, nor of posting a link to your piece.
Moreover, given yesterday’s chemical attack on Syrian civilians, we consider your anxiety about Jamie’s piece to be not merely politically dubious, but in rather poor taste. Please don’t contact us about this matter again.
5 April 2017 email I sent to Salvage magazine:
I emailed you on 19 March pointing out a couple of key factual errors in a recent piece you published – see below. Would you be able to reply to my concerns, please?
19 March 2017 email I sent to Salvage magazine:
“Subject: Correct to Jamie Allinson’s ‘Disaster Islamism’
I read Jamie Allinson’s recent piece ‘Disaster Islamism’ and have written a responsehttps://medium.com/@ian_js/getting-us-intervention-in-syria-wrong-a-response-to-jamie-allinsons-disaster-islamism-9ba20a5738fa#.j0ykn2a0b, pointing out at least two factual errors in Allinson’s piece: that the US only armed Syrian rebels with the precondition the arms would only be used against ISIS and also Allinson’s claim “the aim of the [US’s covert operations] was not to increase the supply of weapons”.
Would you consider adding a correction at the bottom of Allison’s piece highlighting these mistakes?
I look forward to hearing from you.