Friday, June 03, 2005

Brit Hume on Navasky

On Fox News last night, during the 6:30 pm "Political Grapevine" segment, Brit Hume covered the Navasky story by citing E&P:
'America's Premier Media Monitor'?

The Columbia Journalism Review has always insisted it is "America's Premier Media Monitor," and not, as some have suggested, a liberal political journal masquerading as a journalism review. But whom has it turned to lately for guidance? Why, Victor Navasky, the publisher and editorial director of the staunchly liberal magazine The Nation. According to CJR executive editor Michael Hoyt, Navasky has "gradual[ly]" been taking on a key role over the past few months, a role, Hoyt says, that's higher than his own.

But, Hoyt insists it's "99 percent financial," saying that every Friday Navasky meets with staff to "talk business side. ... He doesn't push anything editorially." Navasky tells Editor & Publisher magazine that the next issue of CJR will list him as "Chairman."
(Via News Hounds.)
--------------------
Related posts on this site:
_______________________________
Originally posted at David M.

posted by David M @ 6/03/2005 09:03:00 AM   3 comments

Thursday, June 02, 2005

The Examiner on CJR

In February, Laura Vanderkam wrote a column in The Examiner, Washington DC's free daily, entitled,
Hammered: How blogs are shattering the arrogance of the Columbia Journalism Review and why that's good for journalism
Appropriate, given recent developments. Rumor has it that Vanderkam has a follow-up piece running tomorrow.

Update (June 3): I guess that rumor was incorrect--no Vanderkam piece to be found today.

Ms. Vanderkam has informed me that the article did appear in the print edition of the June 3 Examiner. See full text of article (and my comments) >here.
--------------------
Related posts on this site:
_______________________________
Originally posted at David M.

posted by David M @ 6/02/2005 03:30:00 PM   0 comments

NY Sun covers Navasky story

The New York Sun has a good overview today on the Navasky/CJR story (only first few paragraphs available online without subscription):
...While Mr. [Nicholas] Lemann [dean of the Columbia School of Journalism] intended Mr. Navasky to oversee CJR, his exact role at the magazine wasn't agreed upon until this week, after a New York-based blogger, who goes by the name David M, wrote on Tuesday of the CJR's high profile hire. Shortly after that blog entry, Mr. Lemann and Mr. Navasky settled on the title of "chairman," and said Mr. Navasky's name would be on the masthead in the next issue of CJR....

Mr. Navasky said the staff of the review "wanted me to be listed" on the masthead. He preferred to keep a lower profile, he said, because "I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing here."
The article also cites Power Line (ellipsis in Sun story):
A popular conservative blog, Power Line, had sounded a suspicious note. "CJR purports to be an unbiased media watchdog publication. Yet ... a major left-wing polemicist is calling the shots at CJR without any mention on the masthead," it said.
So far, the Sun is the only newspaper I have found covering the story.

--------------------

Related posts on this site:
_______________________________
Originally posted at David M.

posted by David M @ 6/02/2005 12:20:00 PM   0 comments

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Mark Steyn speaks on Navasky and CJR

Radio Blogger has a transcript of Hugh Hewitt's radio interview of Mark Steyn today in which they discuss Victor Navasky and Columbia Journalism Review. Here is the relevant excerpt (ellipses in orginal):

Hewitt: All right. Second inside baseball story, and I am going to have to publish an apology to David M., a blogger, who broke a story that Victor Navasky is running the Columbia Journalism Review. I mean, what's that strike you as? And you might explain who Navasky is.

Steyn: Well, I think this gets to the problem. I mean, he is the...he is the big guy at the Nation, which is a left-wing opinion magazine, and nothing wrong with that.

Hewitt: Right.

Steyn: But when you buy the Nation, you know it's a left-wing opinion magazine, and you buy it for that reason. The problem with what they call the mainstream media in the United States, is that it has this pose of somehow being neutral arbitors, you know, like they're the Supreme Court. They weigh all the arguments, and judiciously...and that's simply not the case. And so, when you find out that the most left-wing publisher in the country is actually in charge of, you know, a big influence of the Columbia Journalism Review, that actually does help explain the sort of dreary, monolithic bias that you get in a lot of the people who graduate from those things. A neighbor of mine asked me, she wants to go into journalism, and she said, you know, whether she should save up and bankrupt her parents in order to go to Columbia Journalism School. And I said that's ridiculous. If you want to write, start writing. And almost anything you do, in however many years you'd be spending at Columbia Journalism School, whether you want to go to Afghanistan and check out Bagram Air Force Base for yourself, or whatever, anything you do will be more useful than going and sitting and becoming part of the club at Columbia. That's just no use anymore.

Hewitt: Well, it does get you a job, though. I spent a lot of time with Nick Lemon recently, the dean at Columbia School of Journalism, and they do help you get jobs. I don't know that they can necessarily give you the experiences that real journalists have to had to understand the world, but they can get you employed.

[Ellipses in original.]

Note that despite his comments above, Hewitt owes me no apology. He helped publicize the original story, albeit with a healthy sense of skepticism, at least in part because the whole story seemed so outlandish on CJR's part. Once he heard that CJR was indeed naming Navasky chairman, he updated his post accordingly. All along, he gave full credit to this blog.

--------------------
Related posts on this site:
_______________________________
Originally posted at David M.

posted by David M @ 6/01/2005 11:41:00 PM   0 comments

Thoughts on the CJR/Navasky kerfuffle

There are two separate issues at hand here:
  1. Why was a media watchdog being de facto run by a person--a controversial person--without public acknowledgement of that person in the masthead?

    Victor Navasky was playing a key role at the Columbia Journalism Review and was not listed in the publication's masthead. Of that there is now no doubt. The CJR has taken reactive steps to rectify this by announcing, only after exposure in this blog and elsewhere in the blogosphere, that Navasky will be on the masthead next issue. But that does not explain why he was not on the masthead as soon as he started performing the relevant functions. The CJR has lost credibility.

  2. Is a man well known for his left-wing views the right person to be running a supposedly non-partisan media watchdog?

    The major qualification Navasky has for the job is his experience helping liberal journal The Nation. And useful that experience will be--on the business side. But, Navasky is not suited to be running a non-partisan media watchdog. I would say the same of William Buckley or any other pundit known largely for holding ideological views strongly slanted to one side.

    Even if Navasky bends over backwards to be fair, he will always be open to charges of bias. And it remains to be seen if he will bend over backwards to be fair.
--------------------
Related posts on this site:
_______________________________
Originally posted at David M.

posted by David M @ 6/01/2005 06:12:00 PM   3 comments

Media watchdog CJR succumbs to media watchdog blogosphere

Apparently between yesterday--when this blog broke the story of Victor Navasky's involvement with Columbia Journalism Review--and today, CJR has decided to put Navasky on the masthead.

In an article today, Editor & Publisher is reporting that starting with the next issue of CJR, Victor Navasky of The Nation will appear on the CJR masthead as "chairman."

In an interview reported yesterday on this blog, Navasky said it was premature for him to appear on the CJR masthead since his job description had not yet been determined. This blog also reported that CJR executive editor Michael Hoyt said he felt Navasky's name belonged on the masthead "as soon as possible."

In related news, somewhat surprisingly, CJR blog CJR Daily has not mentioned this issue at all as of this post.
--------------------
Related posts on this site:
_______________________________
Originally posted at David M.

posted by David M @ 6/01/2005 03:26:00 PM   3 comments

Inside blogging: evolution of the CJR story

Yesterday I wrote an entry about Victor Navasky running the show at CJR while not appearing on its masthead. This is the story of how that story happened.

On Monday, May 30, I received a tip that big-name left-wing editor Victor Navasky is running things at CJR, and that some people find that problematic, especially since Navasky does not appear on the masthead.

On Tuesday, May 31, I called Navasky at his office at The Nation, where Navasky is publisher and editorial director, to confirm the story. Navasky was gracious in answering my questions. (He also plugged his new book.)

I then called CJR executive editor Michael Hoyt for comment. After asking me if I had talked to Navasky, Hoyt, too, graciously answered my questions.

Having completed the two key interviews, I then wrote the story and posted it on my blog at 4:57 pm ET Tuesday.

I followed that up by a phone call to media blogger Jim Romenesko. Romenesko was intrigued by the story but somewhat skeptical. I sent him a link. I also sent Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds a link. As of the next morning (that is today, Wednesday, June 1), neither Romenesko nor Reynolds had published a link.

I next got in touch with Power Line's Paul Mirengoff (to whom I had been introduced at a dinner reception a couple of weeks earlier). Mirengoff then posted a link and brief discussion on Power Line; as one might expect, Mirengoff's link started sending considerable traffic to this blog. The Power Line link was stamped 8:56 a.m., but I suspect that is Central Time, which equates to 9:56 a.m. ET.

Then at 12:15 ET (or 9:15 a.m. PT, as stamped on his blog), Hugh Hewitt posted a link, citing Power Line. Hewitt expressed skepticism:
Powerline relays a report from David M that Columbia Journalism Review is significantly influenced by big name lefty Victor Navasky, publisher and part owner of The Nation. This strikes me as very improbable. I will be interested to see what CJR's blog, CJR Daily, says about the story throughout the day. Would silence at the blog --lilke silence at the Pentagon when pressed by Newsweek a few weeks ago-- be appropriately understood as a nod towards the accuracy of David M's reporting?
(Note to Hugh Hewitt: If you find it improbable, call CJR and ask. That's what I did.)

Next, at 12:30 p.m. ET, Editor & Publisher posted an article entitled "Victor Navasky Now Playing Key Role at 'CJR'" which cited this blog, though not with a link. Graham Webster reported the story for E&P and apparently interviewed the same two people I had interviewed, Hoyt and Navasky.

At 12:54 p.m. ET, Poynter's Romenesko linked to the E&P story while giving this blog credit:
Navasky steps in at CJR
Lemann asked him to take a role.
(First reported here.)
(E&P | David M)

--------------------
Related posts on this site:
_______________________________
Originally posted at David M.

posted by David M @ 6/01/2005 02:09:00 PM   3 comments