CBS Now Offering Stories From The New Republic & The Weekly Standard

[Khephra]

"The New Republic) Editor’s Note: CBSNews.com is delighted to be offering stories from two distinguished new partners, The New Republic and The Weekly Standard. TNR and the Standard are the two most influential, interesting and, most important to us, fun political magazines in the country (and they both have handsome Web sites, too). Not coincidentally, they inhabit very different sides of today’s ideological spectrum, with TNR headed left and the Standard going right.

This commentary from The New Republic was written buy Andrew Sullivan."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/28/opinion/main580480.shtml

Ok, I'm sure a lot of you have previous knowledge of TNR. (If not, rush out and by "What Liberal Media?")

How can anyone write "TNR headed left" and then offer up an article by Andrew Sullivan as an example from that mag?

Does anyone here really consider TNR or Sullivan to be left leaning? I hope I didn't miss a memo on TNR getting back it's liberal leanings after basically pushing the PNAC line in the past?

[La_Serpiente]

1. I lost all faith in TNR.

They used to be a well respected magazine. Now, their entire magazine staff is run by men and it has a very masculine tone to it.

And they are very VERY pro-Liberman over there. They are always bashing Clark, Kerry, and Dean, and out of touch I must say.

The Nation has replaced them as being the flagship magazine of the left.

[w4rma]

3. The Nation is, by far, the older magazine. The Nation was founded in 1865.

http://www.thenation.com/

TNR was founded in 1914.
http://www.tnr.com/

TNR hasn't been a flagship magazine of the left in a very long time.

Two other good magazines that I like:

Mother Jones was founded in 1974.
http://www.motherjones.com/

I tend to read the American Prospect the most, myself. (founded in 1990):

WHEN YOU'VE LOST THE NEW REPUBLIC . . . Tapped's new favorite thing is the Federal Election Commission database where you can type in anyone's name and see if he or she has donated money to political candidates or parties. (Tapped's old favorite thing was The Washington Post's home buyer database, where you could learn how much your neighbors spent for their apartments.) So check out this nifty little listing (go here and search for “Steinhardt, Michael”) that we discovered while trying to see which big-shot New Democrats were supporting which Democratic presidential candidates: According to this list, Michael Steinhardt, former Democratc Leadership Council stalwart and part-owner of The New Republic, gave $2,000 to Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. on June 20, 2003.

Now, we know that there's often little direct relationship between a magazine owner's politics and the views of its writers, but it is a notable thing when one of the more prominent New Democrats around starts financing the continuation of the Bush administration.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/07/index.html#001288

[tritsofme]

2. And the Weekly Standard is

Murdoch owned and it is basically PNAC's publication.

Scary stuff.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. And look, their first TNR commentary is by Andy Sullivan!!!

How nice of them! NOT!!!!


:puke:

[Flying_Pig]

5. TNR has become a Likunik mouthpiece, which allies them with PNAC.

Sharon and PNAC share virtually the same exact goals. Of course, this should come as no surprise, as most of the top principals (Feith, Abrams, Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton, et al) of PNAC have worked for Israel at one time or another.

TNR, PNAC, and Sharon, all/b] supported and pushed for war in Iraq, and are now pushing for one with Syria.

Can't deny the facts. Which brings me to a question I often ask:
Why do so many congressional Democrats continue to support anything Israel asks for, including war in Iraq and Syria, and billions more for Bush's war budget? What kind of hold does Israel have on these Democrats, that they would vote with the likes of Tom DeLay on these kinds of issues?