April 22, 2004
In response to a complaint by The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, The Nation – one of America’s leading weekly magazines – has adopted a new policy of refusing to accept paid advertisements from Holocaust-deniers.
Wyman Institute director Dr. Rafael Medoff said: “The Nation deserves praise for its swift and decisive action to end its relationship with Holocaust-deniers. It has affirmed the principle that those who deny the Holocaust are ‘fraudulent’ and hate-mongers, who should be treated as pariahs by civilized society.”
The controversy began when an advertisement from a Holocaust-denying organization, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), appeared in the latest issue of The Nation (which is dated May 3, 2004). The IHR ad promoted a new book which, it said, “dissects … the most sacred of Jewish-Zionist icons, the Holocaust story.”
Wyman Institute director Dr. Rafael Medoff sent a letter to The Nation on April 21, 2004 protesting the publication of the IHR ad as well as the “sponsored link” by The Nation which appears on the web site of the Institute for Historical Review. (www.ihr.org) Dr. Medoff wrote: “Holocaust-deniers are not offering a legitimate alternative viewpoint. They are in the business of hate-mongering. They should not be in The Nation, and The Nation should not be on their web site.”
Dr. Medoff said that The Nation’s link to the IHR “is especially troubling in view of The Nation’s proud history as one of the few prominent American publications to speak out, during the Holocaust, for the rescue of Jews from Hitler… A business relationship with Holocaust-deniers today sullies that proud record.” His letter concluded: “We therefore urge you to sever The Nation’s relationship with the Institute for Historical Review and to publicly affirm the principle of refusing to accept advertisements from the IHR and similar groups in the future.”
The Wyman Institute has received a letter from The Nation’s advertising spokesman, Leigh Novog, dated April 21, 2004, announcing that the Wyman Institute’s protest “prompted a meeting of The Nation’s Advertising Acceptability Committee.” The conclusion of the meeting, Novog wrote, was that “[T]here is a strong presumption against censoring any advertisement, especially if we disagree with its politics. This case, however, is different. Their arguments are ‘patently fraudulent.’ The magazine has requested the advertiser, The Institute for Historical Review, not run advertising in future issues.”