The highbrow literary magazine has re-emerged as a combative political actor.
The Sinclair Broadcast Group, a Maryland-based media company whose
holdings include sixty-two TV stations, did the country a favor when it
refused to air the April 30 special edition of Nigh
Grover Norquist, the right's premier political organizer, once told
me that the most significant difference between liberal journalists
and conservative journalists is that the former are jou
When George W.
The beast will not die.
Because of space constraints and incautious wording in my column last week, I referred to the Times's "Jayson Blair/Gerald Boyd problem." I intended to refer to those attacks on the Times that had asserted or implied that Boyd had in some way been responsible for overlooking Blair's shortcomings and that this pattern somehow reflected on the Times's affirmative-action policies. I did not mean to imply that there was any truth to these accusations. Indeed, there is none on the record as far as I am aware. I apologize to Mr. Boyd for any misimpressions I may have created. --Eric Alterman
The conduct of our major newspapers in the run-up to the Iraq war calls to mind William Hazlitt's famous appraisal of the Times of London.
In forty years of observing presidential contests, I cannot remember another major candidate brutalized so intensely by the media, with the possible exception of George Wallace.
Paul Wellstone would have loved the turn the race for the Democratic presidential nomination has taken.
John Hess, who, it should be said, is one of The Nation's oldest friends and severest critics, once complained to me about an "editor's choice" blurb I'd written, which contained a brief