Victor Navasky at the Columbia Journalism Review?Okay, so we knew the
CJR wasn't exactly
middle of the road, but
this is ridiculous.
As for whether having the longtime editor of a magazine with a famously political (liberal) bent involved in the administration of CJR, Hoyt said appearances might not match with reality. "It could give somebody an opportunity to make a connection, but the connection is not there," Hoyt said. "He doesn't push anything editorially."That's a bunch of hooey. First of all, The Nation, which Navasky edited for years and is currently the publisher, is NOT liberal. It's Leftist. I have a continuum of magazines/newspapers in my mind:
Far Left: Z-Mag, Lip
Left: The Nation
Left-Liberal: The American Prospect
Liberal: The New York Times
Moderate Liberal: The New Republic, Washington Post
Centrist: Not thinking of anybody offhand
Moderate Conservative: Weekly Standard
Conservative: The National Review
Right-Wing Conservative: The Wall Street Journal
Right: Manchester Union-Leader?
Far Right: The American Conservative
Not sure if the Manchester Union-Leader is still as hard right as it used to be. Anyway, it's not hard to see that on this scale, the Nation is pretty far out of the center. Navasky is still an apologist for the excesses of the Soviet Union; years ago I heard him give a speech where he laughingly referred to the "Moscow Money"; unfortunately for him it was later discovered that indeed, the "Moscow Money" had been sent by the Kremlin to the Communist Party of the United States. As far as I know, The Nation has never acknowledged the guilt of Alger Hiss and some of the others who were found to be on Moscow's payroll.
