Ara over at E Pluribus Unum has done some very nice analytical work on a recent sort-of interesting sort-of story about an Al Gore speaking engagement in the People's "Republic" of China. He conducts a pretty good dissection. Indeed, I wonder if they do stuff like that in journalism school? If not, they should.
"Nooz" stories like this ("nooz" bearing the same relationship to real news as "cheez" does to real cheese) deserve to be torn apart and dissected. But the story also illustrates something interesting about how political reporting often works in this country. I don't mean that in a cynical way, either.
In the U.S., there exists a thriving and interesting group of political journals, usually published weekly or bi-weekly. They are part of an old tradition. The Nation, a journal of fairly radical leftism, was founded in 1865. (That was the year Lincoln was assassinated, for you Jeopardy fans.) The New Republic, probably the most respectable of the left-leaning political journals, published its first issue in 1914. The National Review, the most respected of the right-leaning political journals, first appeared in 1955.
Oddly enough, if you added up the circulation of the oldest and best-known journals, and a half-dozen of their younger competitors (like Reason, The American Prospect, and The Weekly Standard), it would probably not reach even a quarter million issues put together, and only published every week or two.
Compare that to, say, the nation's newspapers, or the big news weeklies (Newsweek publishes almost four and a half million copies per issue), the small political journals seem insignificant. Yet you could make a good case that the little guys have a stronger long-term impact on our history and our politics than any of the giants like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times.
Political journals are where the great political debates of the age are often first conducted. You'd be surprised who reads them: Presidents, senators, cabinet secretaries, governors, diplomats, congressmen, ambassadors, corporate CEOs. It's not unusual to find letters or articles in these publications from people who later go on to become major political figures. Ronald Reagan and a few members of his cabinet (including Jack Kemp) read The National Review for many years before they got into politics. Al Gore used to read things like Mother Jones and The New Republic, and Martin Peretz, TNR's publisher since the 1970s, was one of Al Gore's campaign advisers. A few of the people over at The Weekly Standard have substantial personal contacts within the Bush White House.
These are also a sort of "minor league" for big name journalists. Well-known pundit Charles Krauthammer used to write regularly for The New Republic. Brit Hume, the anchor for what is arguably the best political news and analysis show on the air (Special Report) used to write for Ramparts, the most influential of the left-wing radical publications of the 1960s. (It eventually sort of morphed into Mother Jones.)
But calling them the "minor leagues" isn't quite right either. Sometimes a reporter who can't sell a story to his editor will submit it to one of these political journals, and it'll turn out to be dynamite. Sometimes, a writer or journalist--or politician or business man--will publish something in one of these just because he respects the publication and gets a kick out of being published in it.
Political reporters often rely on all these publications for ideas and for leads. Politicians looking for big ideas often use them as a source of inspiration. And, not infrequently, you will hear political candidates and sitting politicians saying things that sound like they were lifted straight out of The New Republic or The National Review -- and it's frequently because that's exactly where they came from. It's also sometimes a two-way relationship: prominent politicians will sometimes feed information to their favorite political journals.
Sometimes, all of these publications will contain stupid non-news stories--not at all unlike the Weekly Standard piece Ara deconstructed. My only reservation for Ara, if I had any, would be to ask him where he thinks similar silly nooz stories about Dick Cheney's terrible "Halliburton problem" had their genesis. Hint: that particular echo chamber in a house of mirrors probably involved Common Dreams and The Nation and The New Republic, until the noise finally made its way up to the New York Times via guys like Paul Krugman.
While the stories in these publications are sometimes questionable, they sometimes turn out to be based on solid research and of surprising importance. The good ones will sometimes make their way into your nightly news, weeks or even months after they first appeared in Mother Jones or The National Review. On the other hand, sometimes a story will languish in these journals and eventually peter out and die.
Of all the political journals, some have more prestige than others. This is based partly on age and budget, but also on responsibility: the better publications are generally less vicious and irresponsible--although, being run by humans, none are immune to such temptations. The farther down the food chain you go, though, the more scabrous and rant-oriented they get, and the more willing they are to indulge in rumor and innuendo and wild-eyed conspiracy theories.
On "The Right," a hierarchy of civility and thoughtfulness would probably look something like this:
1) Commentary
2) The National Review
3) The Weekly Standard
4) The American Spectator
5) Front Page Magazine
6) Newsmax/Vortex
On "The Left":
1) The New Republic
2) Mother Jones
3) The American Prospect
4) The Nation
5) Common Dreams
6) SFGate
This is by no means a definitive list. There are some I've left out or forgotten. Also, most of the better ones do not fit into little pigeonholes marked "Democrat" or "Republican" or "left" or "right" anyway.
Still, if you run through the lists I've given here, you'll see that the lower you go, the more strange, rant-oriented, conspiracy-minded, and given to publishing almost anything that makes "the other side" look evil they become. Not that this makes them always wrong, or completely worthless. It's just sort of a hierarchy of nastiness--the lower you go, the more of a street-fighter attitude you get.
Most of these publications talk about each other, quote from each other, even mention stories that the others have published. Sometimes there are internecine squabbles and disagreements. And sometimes, there's a little fighting with the folks on the other side. The The National Review used to love taunting The Nation, while The American Prospect regularly quotes from The Weekly Standard and pokes fun at The National Review.
Don't be tempted to think any of this is worthless because it isn't perfect or 100% reliable. An astounding number of influential and powerful people cut their teeth on these publications, and political reporters and editors often use them as source and inspiration. Some of them are read by the most powerful people in the country. Including not a few history makers.
The more of this stuff you read--especially if you're smart, and try to read stuff which doesn't always match your own prejudices--the more you learn about politics, and reporting, and how ideas grow, mature, and die in a free society.
Spend ten years reading one or two of the publications on these lists, and browsing the rest, and your friends and relatives will think you're some kind of tuned-in political genius, with a sound grasp of history and an interesting perspective on things. Or they'll think you're a giant geek with no life who tends to be conspiracy-minded and silly. It all depends on which publications you read and how seriously you take everything you read.
Given that none of these publications are 100% reliable, it's tempting to wash your hands of them and angrily conclude that it's all a big chaotic uncontrolled mess. Or, if you're paranoid, you think that there's some vast conspiracy running one or more of these "media machines."
But there is no machine, no conspiracy to speak of. It's a bunch of writers and journalists who share certain perspectives, talking to each other and arguing with each other. It's been going on for decades--indeed, for longer than anyone today has been alive. It's that strange and wonderful mix of political freedom and a free market: squabbling, irresponsible, small-minded, mean, thoughtful, informative, useful, responsible, and highly influential all at once. These publications are dynamite because, as small as they are, their influence on the world we live in is a lot bigger than you might think.
Dean,
One publication you forgot to mention also spawned editors of many other opinion journals. The Washington Monthly owned by its eccentric publisher, Charlie Peters, has an interesting history.
Peters accepts no advertising money in his magazine for some reason or another, not that he has had zero opportunity to do so. This places The Washington Monthly amongst the pantheon of magazines accepting no advertising such as “Mad Magazine” and “American Woodworker.” So, as you can guess, The Washington Monthly makes no money. Charlie Peters also has trouble paying his bills. He must be an economic masochist.
Stories abound of how Charlie Peters evades bill collectors ducking out doors or having somebody take phone messages he does not return. Please note Mr. Peters’ attire if you ever chance to see Mr. Peters on television. He dresses in completely unremarkable attire resembling somebody from an Oliver Twist story. Somehow or another he has managed to keep his publication afloat for over a quarter century.
Since Charlie Peters makes no money himself, why should he pay his staff any money? He doesn't, at least no much. His paltry staff salaries are legendary. He is a true to life skinflint. That is why Peters accepts editors for only one-year terms. Nobody can serve as editor twice; and no editor can serve two years. Nobody can afford it.
Publisher Peters has been able to attract an impressive bevy of talent despite these austere circumstances. His list of editors reads like a Social Register of magazine editors including graduates from Harvard Law School and Georgetown. His past editors include Michael Kinsley, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Peter Beinert, et. al.
It's almost entertaining to watch folks move around, too, isn't it? Katrina vanden Heuvel is now the editor of The Nation, and Beinert is the editor of The New Republic these days.
Andrew Sullivan, one of the most popular web loggers, used to edit The New Republic.
Have you ever read this story on the birth, life, and death of the American Spectator? It is highly entertaining and very human.
Dean, thanks for the link to that article on The American Spectator. I've been a regular reader of the Spectator for 15 years now-- a subscriber for nearly as long-- and have raised my eyebrows more than once at that magazine's propensity to reinvent itself every few years. I've never let my subscription lapse-- never would, as long as they keep printing Ben Stein-- but I have wondered what the hell was going on behind the scenes.
Next question, where is The American Spectator headed, now that it has reverted from its recent status as The George Gilder Journal of Cyber-Whatsis?
Dean - Very interesting discussion. Martin Peretz at TNR, by the way, was not only a Gore adviser. He has been close to Gore since he taught him at Harvard. Also, I would quibble a little bit with describing TNR as on the left. The Nation is left--predictably, uniformly, often ridiculously. It is perhaps the greatest strength of TNR, on the other hand, that it is somewhat unpredictable and eclectic. It fired Michael Kelley because his anti-Clinton editorials were so stinging and relentless that Peretz felt it would rub off on Gore. It supported Gore. BUT, if I had to describe its politics these days, and really for the past coupla decades, I would say it's neo-liberal but certainly not left. The Nation is useful because it provides a clear and unobstructed view into the "mind" (I use the term loosely) of the left. TNR is interesting because it's well written and, within reasonably wide boundaries, unpredictable.
Well, like I said, the best of these journals can't be put into convenient little pigeonholes. I might well say the same sorts of things about Commentary or The National Review in some of its better moments. (The print version, anyway. The online version is more reliably partisan, but even still, has a surprising amount of diversity.)
It remains that TNR regularly endorses Democrats and opposes most Republican proposals.
They're still a killer journal. Although I think they were at their best when Andrew Sullivan was their editor.
I believe you can characterize National Review as a combination of economic libertarians and social conservatives. That was its original character when Buckley founded it. Does anybody believe that has changed?
I don't think that's how Buckley founded it, but it's safe--somewhat--to characterize that as their basic viewpoint nowadays.
But then, how would that jibe with the fact that their stated position is that medical marijuana, indeed pot in general, should be criminalized, and that the drug war should be ended? Or a host of other things they publish which are hardly written from a strict social conservative viewpoint?
The New Republic started as a socialist magazine, then they wound up endorsing FDR and became more centrist.
As I've said, the better publications are not easily pigeonholed, and contain a wide variety of divergent opinion. The better ones contain a whole range of opinions and will freely publish dissenting views from the official editorial position of the journal.
Once again, the higher up those lists I mention you go, the more diversity and healthy debate you tend to find.
>>But then, how would that jibe with the fact that their stated position is that medical marijuana, indeed pot in general, should be (de)criminalized, and that the drug war should be ended? Or a host of other things they publish which are hardly written from a strict social conservative viewpoint?
Dean,
Your interesting point can be clearly answered by two words: Bill Buckley. Buckley might be the one with the Libertarian streak in him, after all. His last anthology is titled: “Ruminations of a Libertarian,” or something like that.
I believe Bill Buckley picked up his libertarianism from a friend of his father named Albert Jay Nock. Nock is considered the first Libertarian and was a close friend of William F. Buckley, Sr. Albert Jay Nock was also a friend of H. L. Mencken writing for Mencken’s two magazines “The Smart Set” and “The American Mercury.” Nock is also the author of books on numerous subjects. His biography of Thomas Jefferson is highly regarded as one of the best biographies of Jefferson. He also wrote books on education and other social issues. His libertarian manifesto, “Memoirs of a Superfluous Man” is an interesting read.
It appears as though Buckley has successfully imprinted some of his Libertarian views on his old magazine. This is the best explanation I have since the decriminalization of marijuana is a Libertarian position. That is why I earlier stated that NR has always conflated social conservatives with economic libertarians.
I agree with the comment about TNR. It is certainly not Left. It is hawkish on foreign policy and liberal on social issues.
On the Left, I would add Dissent, which has been very small and very influential, and belongs at the top of the list for civility, thoughtfulness, decency, integrity.
More here.
PS. Dissent is edited by Michael Walzer, who wrote the essay "Can There Be a Decent Left?" after 9-11. It was founded by Irving Howe in 1954 "to provide a home for radicals who were deeply anti-Stalinist." Even David Horowitz respects it.
I know, I know it is by no means an all inclusive list. Yet, I'm going to make a suggestion anyways. Insight published by the Washington Times company. It's always there on the rack at Border's and considering the publisher I'd have to say you can add Insight to the list of magazines on the Right.
Ah, the little magazines! You missed a few
http://www.city-journal.org/ Tool of the Manhattan Institute
http://www.thepublicinterest.com/
http://www.amconmag.com/ Pat Buchanon's Mag - the only print outlet that prints those on the right who have been banished to outer darkness like:
http://www.vdare.com/ and
http://www.isteve.com/
http://www.policyreview.org/ and http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/default.html an arm of http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/ which has a whole range of publications
http://reason.com/ Libertarian (oddly CATO and Heritage doen't have house mags)
http://www.taemag.com/
http://ao.hudson.org/index.cfm
http://www.theatlantic.com/
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/current/ tool of the Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/index.php tool of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/ - Subscription is $1,500
http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.welcome
All these (and much much more) can be found on the sidebar at
http://www.aldaily.com/
Their "favorites" are typically online ezines heavy on content