Bloom describes Iowa as “schizophrenic,” “economically depressed,” and “culturally challenged.” (The piece originally and inaccurately stated that Iowa is 96 percent white, despite 2010 census data showing that number is actually about 91 percent; the error has since been corrected.) His essay invokes a 2008 quote from then-candidate Barack Obama stating that people from the Midwest who are unemployed and frustrated “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” It argues that the state is not accepting of racial or religious diversity, and that it is “insular” because farmers from one county do not know all the farmers from another. It derisively suggests that a state filled with people who like to hunt is not a suitable demographic for choosing the next president. And, in the sentence that has aroused more fury in my home state than any other, it asserts, “Those who stay in rural Iowa are often the elderly waiting to die, those too timid (or lacking in education) to peer around the bend for better opportunities, an assortment of waste-toids and meth addicts.”
Each of these claims might have been subjected to greater skepticism in advance (what might be a better, more representative voting demographic than hunters: scrapbookers, say, or marathon runners, or wine enthusiasts?) and since publication many of them have been by readers. In an acknowledgment of the criticism the piece has generated, an Atlantic editor wrote Wednesday, “Obviously, no one piece can encompass how life is lived by all the people of a state of more than three million.”
But elsewhere in its response to critics, the magazine has broken one of journalism’s golden rules: errors should be corrected forthrightly, and with as much fanfare as the original mistake was made. The piece erroneously stated that the state’s second-largest newspaper, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, ran an Easter Sunday headline in 1994 “splashed across Page One” that read, “He Has Risen.” The Gazette has since produced a copy of that front page. The top two headlines are actually about a murder in the state and ethnic cleansing in Croatia, with a small (albeit odd and journalistically inappropriate) box above the fold quoting a Bible verse that includes the words “He is risen.”
Rather than simply concede the error, The Atlantic added this note as one of a number of “corrections and clarifications”: “A 1994 newspaper headline both Prof. Bloom and his wife recall is different from the one on the edition of the Cedar Rapids Gazette unearthed by a reporter for the paper from its archives.” But there is no debate here: the story was wrong; no evidence has been presented that the dramatic headline exists. And the fact that Bloom remembers that small box as dramatically as he does perhaps says something about the lens through which he has viewed his adopted home state from day one.
Readers have also, correctly, taken Bloom and The Atlantic to task for the article’s one-sided depiction of Iowans’ views about same-sex marriage. The piece suggests that same-sex marriage is likely doomed if state Republicans succeed in forcing a referendum on the issue, a claim that seems intended to paint the state as provincial. But a poll just a few months ago found that 46 percent of Iowans believe same-sex marriage should be legal, compared to 45 percent who do not. Maybe Bloom is right about how things would turn out at the ballot box, but those results suggest an awfully progressive mindset for a state portrayed as so old-fashioned and non-inclusive.
Bloom, whom I consider a personal friend—and who was among my teachers when I was a journalism student at the University of Iowa—has deflected criticism of his piece by suggesting that Iowans are taking offense because he has brought up “tough truths” about the state that no one wants to address: anti-immigrant sentiment, a brain drain of talent, a declining population.
So let’s focus on some tough truths in assessment of the piece—and hope that as news outlets take their turn characterizing the terrain that is Iowa, they will do the same in the coming weeks.

The great blogger Iowahawk has a complete list of corrections needed for Professor Bloom's piece.
#1 Posted by Dan Collins, CJR on Sat 17 Dec 2011 at 02:12 PM
#2 Posted by melanerpes, CJR on Sat 17 Dec 2011 at 02:20 PM
After reading Bloom's article and the hundreds of responses that followed, an acquaintence said, "That will teach Bloom to mess with a state filled with writers!"
#3 Posted by Steve Maravetz, CJR on Sat 17 Dec 2011 at 03:37 PM
Dean Klinkenberg agrees:
http://mississippivalleytraveler.com/iowa%E2%80%99s-skuzzy-river-towns/
#4 Posted by Johneh, CJR on Sat 17 Dec 2011 at 10:58 PM
Iowa reminds me of Eugene Robinson's description of Newt Gingrich -- a nice enough guy, fun to talk to, but he gets a little power and his head swells to the size of a float in the Macy's parade.
So it is with Iowa around primary time.
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Sat 17 Dec 2011 at 10:59 PM
Here’s our show about Bloom’s article:
“Yale talks with four native Iowans about the depiction of them and the state they call home in Stephen Bloom’s scathing and controversial article in The Atlantic Monthly, his motives for publishing it, the response its generated across the state, and its national implications with regards to Iowa’s first in the nation voting status.”
http://patv.tv/blog/2011/12/18/talking-with-stephen-blooms-observations-oniowa/
#6 Posted by Yale Cohn, CJR on Sun 18 Dec 2011 at 11:00 AM
I enjoyed your show, Mr. Cohn, and the panel that you assembled. (Despite the California-bashing. haha. A show devoted to rebutting an Atlantic piece about how mean an Iowa-bashing writer is, the moderator and guest jumping in on the California-bashing to prove a point about how great Iowa is. Funny. Ironic. Yes. We in California have "hicks.")
I regret the time spent on the personal attacks on the author, but only because I found the discussion of the caucuses so interesting. I really think that you and your panel misunderstand the objections to the outsized influence your lovely state has on our presidential elections. It's not that Missouri or California could do any better. It's that a few people (caucus-goers) out of a state with 3 million people get to decide for 308 million people who are going to be the choices for leader of the United States. Your panelists claim that the process is small-d democratic, but it is anything but. And the pomposity and self-importance isn't endearing, either.
Cheers and best wishes.
#7 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 18 Dec 2011 at 12:31 PM
We all know Iowa hicks would never allow gays to marry like they do in California, and the unemployment rate in Iowa is so high compared to Californa that Iowa hicks would never hire let alone give a $105K/yr-for-life tenure to some guy from California with just a bachelor's degree (who wishes he could be somewhere else). Meh. But hey Iowa, thanks for putting Obama in office. Dumb hicks with rotten teeth got fooled good.
#8 Posted by The flour is risen, CJR on Sun 18 Dec 2011 at 02:03 PM
And George W. Bush twice. George W Bush, the worst president in US history. Twice. I mean really, Iowa, was G W really the best Republican choice to run for president back in 2000? Or did you with your "caucus" thingy and your self-importance get hoodwinked and bamboozled by George W Bush and Company? That fact alone is enough to discredit your judgment forevermore.
#9 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 18 Dec 2011 at 05:14 PM
The cultural/political divide in this country is huge. Nothing like it since the wets versus the drys at the turn of the 19th century.
Everybody has chosen sides: the major tv networks are mostly pro-Obama, AM radio is mostly anti. The NEW YORK TIMES has become PRAVDA as has the ATLANTIC.
There's no longer even a pretense of objectivity anymore.
#10 Posted by VoteOutIncumbents, CJR on Mon 19 Dec 2011 at 07:01 AM
I was raised in California and spent my first 13 working years in San Francisco. Moving for business brought me to St. Louis and finally the rolling hills of Iowa. Is this heaven? No, after California, it is indeed heaven. Except for the typical profligate dems in Des Moines, the state works. It takes five minutes to complete any state transaction. It takes 10 minutes to renew a driver's license.
The people are hard working and honest. Aggressively working class, I term them. Any culture I need is a short drive across the river or a plane ride anywhere I want to go. Then I return to sanity: Iowa. I'll never leave.
#11 Posted by Mazzuchelli, CJR on Mon 19 Dec 2011 at 10:55 AM
Ignoring all the signs of trouble in the Heartland will give elitists major political heart attack.
#12 Posted by rowley, CJR on Mon 19 Dec 2011 at 03:27 PM
This comment is a reply to "The flour is risen" and "James." Since when does Iowa decide on the next president of the United States? Last time I checked, anyone in any state who is over the age of 18 and able to vote can vote. Iowa definitely starts the process, but it is not producer of the president If you can argue that, let me know.
#13 Posted by EH, CJR on Tue 20 Dec 2011 at 09:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUFedMt9N_Y
iowa teens respond to bloom is this hysterical video NSFW NSFW
watch this video it is very funny i am a smart iowa teen here is what we REALLY think of mr bloom
#14 Posted by Johnny Stromson, CJR on Sat 31 Dec 2011 at 04:28 AM
thank you for a thoughtful piece.
#15 Posted by Gene Ambroson, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 09:09 PM