The Weekly Standard's War: Murdoch sells the paper that helped sell the Iraq War.

Originally published in Extra!, (Sept. 09) the magazine for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

The Weekly Standard, the country's preeminent neoconservative magazine, was sold to Clarity Media Group, a Denver-based publishing group, for an undisclosed sum in June (Washington Examiner, 6/17/09). Murdoch's unloading of the country's most vigorously pro-war journal marks the end of a particularly sinister and regrettable era in the history of U.S. media.

At a glance, the move may seem unremarkable, given the Standard's relative size. With a circulation of about 65,000 and annual losses estimated from $1 million (New Yorker, 10/16/06) to $5 million (Forbes, 6/29/09), the Standard represented only a tiny fraction of Murdoch's vast media empire. Murdoch's News Corporation, one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, took in nearly $33 billion in revenue in 2008 from properties in virtually every sector of the media, including such giants as Fox News Channel, Dow Jones, HarperCollins and MySpace, as well as hundreds of newspapers and television stations across the world.

While it yielded no financial gain for Murdoch and News Corp shareholders, for a time the Standard was arguably the most effective magazine in the nation in terms of its influence on policy. Edited by GOP political operative and neoconservative extraordinaire William Kristol, it had the eyes and ears of prominent members of the new Bush administration, Department of Defense and Congress who drastically escalated the United States' imperial ambitions. Perhaps no publication was as active or as successful in shaping the propaganda campaign that would enable this remarkable foreign policy transformation to take place.

Read the rest here.

TNR & the Blogs

Jonathan Chait has a massive cover story for TNR this week on the netroots which is available for free. As you might imagine there is considerable buzz around this and the Plank is keeping up with the responses. When I am done absorbing this, I hope to provide one of my own.

As you probably know, TNR and the blogs have quite an adversarial relationship, and it has sparked some debate over at our old stomping ground. (here, here, here and here).

At one point in the exchange I wrote:

Wow, what a shocker. Peter Beinart, the "liberal" who said the left was blinded by Bush hatred when they refused to embrace the illegal invasion of Iraq (gee I wonder what Peter says about that now?) now attacks -- gasp -- liberal bloggers. Talk about a one-trick pony.

TNR's leftward shift?

The New Republic's planned leftward shift is off to a curious start. As I noted before, they still have a strange partnership with the Democratic Leadership Council, the increasingly irrelevant group of illiberal New Democrats. But this week's issue is especially telling.

*Here is an article -- a cover story on how to approach Iran, no less -- by Robert Kagan, an arch-neoconservative who, along with William Kristol, co-founded the Project for a New American Century. What kind of left-leaning paper has one of the world’s foremost unilateralist hawks writing a cover story on "What to do about Iran"? Only the New Republic. And it is not like the Kagan's do not have plenty of other outlets: they have the ear of the President, are called to testify before Congress, and of course, dominate the editorials in the Weekly Standard.

* Also featured is an article by Lee Seigel who is best know for coining the term "blogofacism" to describe liberal election blogs, and then losing his job when he posted comments under his piece pretending to be someone else praising his own work. Under the screenname 'sprezzatura' he wrote: "Siegel is brave, brilliant, and wittier than [Jon] Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep."

Stay classy, TNR.

Olmert, AIPAC and Western Media

When I read that only two percent if Israeli’s trust their prime minister, I had to double check that it wasn’t a typo, but in fact it was not. Of course, I was not surprised to see that the people of Israel are uncomfortable with the actions of their leaders. Even a casual look at the political debate within Israel shows that critical dialogue of Israeli foreign policy is far more common than here it is in the US. But still, even knowing this, one had to be taken aback by that near unanimity of discontent with Olmert amongst the Israeli people. Two percent is Bush’s approval rating amongst African Americans. Hell, I would not be shocked if two percent of Climatologists think man is not responsible for global warming; and to think that Olmert is running a country has virtually no support for him and his policies shows how little the people are represented in a country that is often praised by the US for its commitment to democracy.

As Steven Maher, a blogger with a strong expertise on Middle East issues, noted recently:

… AIPAC does not represent mainstream debate in Israel, and is controlled by the same interests as its government. Both, in fact, represent a small group on the far right of Israeli society, who favor the extreme militarism and expansionism exhibited throughout Israel's history, including the presence of illegal settlements and the construction of the illegal "separation barrier."

The poll -- as eye-opening as it is -- did not really penetrate the Western media. This is a problem. That one of our chief allies, and a country that is supported by the US in ways no other nation could ever dream of, has a leader with virtually no popular support should be page one material in any newspaper that reports on international issues. This is especially true given that we are currently engaged in a a disastrous occupation of a country that was sold as “democracy exportation” and was backed by the Israeli government.

Of course this is hardly surprising. As I and others have noted criticism of Israeli policy comes with consequences in the US. Groups like the Anti-Defamation league, AIPAC and Campus Watch quickly go on the attack when a prominent person dares to suggest that some of US policies as it pertains to Israel is bad for both the US and Israel. When Walt and Mearshiemer -- two well-known realist academics -- wrote the "The Israel Lobby" which gave a measured, and by no means radical critique of these issues, the attacks were cartoonishly vicious. Alan Dershowitz wrote a 44 page response that among other things compared the authors to David Duke, an assertion that is utterly laughable on its face.

But perhaps the Dershowitz types have overplayed their hand. The attacks on Jimmy Carter and his latest book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, did not stick, and probably helped sell his book, which has done quite well. Jimmy Carter is a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a former president, and the absurd claims that he was an anti-Semite, funded by terrorists, are just too silly to be sold to reasonable people, despite the efforts of some.

Moreover, people are occasionally writing critically about this issue. On top of Walt/Mershiemer, and Carter, we have seen sprinkles of debate regarding the ability to talk out about Israel. It is is interesting that most articles are not about Israel policies specifically, but rather, about the importance of feeling free to debate them at all. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.

Some notable examples are a column by Nick Kristof, which was tame, but relevant since it came from the paper of record. Moreover, a Times Magazine profile of Abe Foxman addressed some of the sensitivity in debating Israeli policy, as did a Globe magazine piece called "Too Hot to Handle." Walt and Mearsheimer are publishing a book this year, and more recently George Soros wrote a piece about Democrats and AIPAC in the New York Review of Books. Of course Marty Peretz quickly condemned it. So did Foreign Policy who used such incomprehensible logic, that I need to quote it.

Just as rock stars and models often hope to parlay their success in one arena into possibly more glamorous careers on the silver screen, so do hyper-rich moguls often come to fancy themselves as policy experts whose undoubted sagacity in matters of business obligates them to dole out advice on matters of state. So it is that we find ourselves treated to a 3,567-word critique of current U.S. policy toward Israel by George Soros in the latest New York Review of Books that could have been accomplished in three or four sentences ...

Soros's sprawling essay is very much a lesson on what money can and cannot buy. Eloquence? Perhaps not. Originality? Not so much. But one thing's for sure: Soros, who happens to be Jewish and happens to be worth a cool $8.5 billion, doesn't have to worry that criticizing AIPAC and U.S. policy toward Israel will destroy his career.

That Foreign Policy wouldn't exist without Andrew Carnegie's money is just one of many reasons to laugh at such a needless comment which does not bother to address Soros points and claims that they are unoriginal and redundant. This is peculiar coming from a publication that repeats the same analysis of virtually everyone else on the issue on the UK/Iran dispute, to name just one of many examples.

As the Soros episode reminds us, one is going to lose some skin if they address Israeli with a hint of criticism. But understanding that the Jewish community is way to the left of the Israel government, and AIPAC, one has to wonder if there is a chance for an alternative to AIPAC, as this editorial in The Nation suggests.

The Great Jewish Hope is that the liberal Jewish money in the political process will separate itself from hawkish Jewish money. Steve Rabinowitz, a Democratic consultant in DC, describes the potential pool: "AIPAC is enormous in terms of influence, in terms of guiding the money. The numbers are gigantic...whether you support them or not, you have to be awed by the success when you see it in action.

Given the latest developments--Olmert's two percent approval rating, the increasing discontent with AIPAC and its influence on debate, the increasing number of dissenting voices, the ever-increasing vitriol of the the Foxman/Dershowitz types, the devastation of Lebanon last summer, and the continued drum beating on Iran--it sure seems as if there is a real vacuum for this Great Jewish Hope.

NRO turns on Rudy

I suppose it was only a matter of time before this editorial was written. Rudy had been given a pass up until recently -- no one has even mentioned that he married his second cousin -- but it seems things are coming unglued for the 9-11 mayor.

When Rudolph Giuliani announced his entry into the race for president, we noted that there were reasons to find his candidacy both compelling and problematic. In the latter category fell, above all, his denial that unborn children have a right to life. Even on that issue, however, we held out hope that Giuliani would try to meet pro-life conservatives halfway. He had already come around on partial-birth abortion, even if he had not come up with a good explanation for his shift. He had said that he favors “strict constructionist” judges, who attempt to determine what the law is rather than to make it what they think it should be. We hoped that he would go further: for example, by joining President Bush in declaring Roe v. Wade a bad decision as a matter of constitutional law, or even by joining Sen. John McCain in calling for its overturning.

Instead, we are sorry to say, he has mostly gone into reverse. Since his announcement, he has said that, in his mind, a strict constructionist judge could as easily rule to keep Roe as to scrap it. He has continued to misrepresent pro-lifers as seeking to throw pregnant women “in jail.” He has refused to rule out signing federal legislation codifying Roe should it be presented to him as president. And, most troublingly, has reiterated his longstanding support for taxpayer funding for abortion.

Not-So-Strange Bedfellows: TNR & the DLC

This is pretty interesting. The Democratic Leadership Council is offering a free year of The New Republic Online for anyone willing to fill it out a form.

At a glance this seems unsuprising. TNR has been a champion of DLC-style centrism for quite some time now -- even before the Clinton years. What is odd is that when TNR announced it was making big changes in ownership and format, editor Franklin Foer gave the impression that the magazine was headed leftward.

It seems the DLC is not so convinced.

I do have to say, I am conflicted on this. As I have made clear before, I am no fan of the DLC. On the other hand, I do a lot of researching, factchecking and reading for my work, and it is not uncommon for the TNR paywall to get in my way. So do I take the bait and the free subscription?

The DLC robbed my country of an opposition party, after all, so it hardly seems unreasonable for me take a damn magazine subscription.

The American Conservative Lives

There had been whispers that the paleonconservative publication, The American Conservative, would cease publication due to funding. But the latest news about a new publisher should end such speculation.

I have noted the value of The American Conservative on the blog before (here, and here). And given the changes facing print media, that an opinion journal that represents an underrepresented ideological view is here to stay, can only be good for democracy and discourse.

Also worth watching is the status of The New Republic, which was recently sold by Peretz to the huge Canadien conglomerate, CanWest. That Peretz's iron grip on the magazine is loosened is one reason to be optimistic, but CanWest brings some of its own baggage.

Soros, Peretz and AIPAC

George Soros writes a piece in The New York Review of Books that will surely anger the likes of Marty Peretz, who has already responded with a predictable tirade.

Paleocons & the Left: Strange Bedfellows (Part II)

Ezra Klein and other liberal bloggers were applauded in a really good article in The American Conservative. Now, this is the second time in a couple of weeks I have pointed out how edifying a read The American Conservative can be, and in reading back issues, this is not a new phenomenon.

In 2004, rather than endorsing one candidate, they ran six editorials with a different writer making a different endorsement: for Bush, Nader, Kerry, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party and -- get this -- not voting. Here, one can also read an interview between Nader and Pat Buchanan.

Say what you will about the more repugnant views of many Paleocons, but I think they understand why opinion journalism is important in expanding debate.

The Weekly Standard's Weakest Link

I have long thought that Fred Barnes is the weakest writer at the The Weekly Standard, which, despite my utter contempt for their ideology, most notably their foreign policy views, does have some sharp writers.

This latest article -- Cheerleader in Chief -- proves that Barnes doesn't even want to be taken seriously. Recall this is from the guy who wrote a book calling George Bush the "Rebel in Chief."

That's right, a guy from Yale who just happens to be the son of the President of the United States is a rebel.

Strange Bedfellows: paleocons and the left?

What a twisted political time we live in. The most recent issue of The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's journal of paleoconservative thought, has three articles that -- with some important distinctions -- could have been published in Z Magazine.

What If We Leave?

When nightmare scenarios are used to justify endless war, it’s time to wake up.

Who Will Stop The Next War?

If Americans sickened by the carnage of Iraq wish to stop an even more disastrous war on Iran, they had best get cracking.

Honest Broker: Jimmy Carter’s book stirs a critical debate.

The ground seems to be shifting under our feet. M.J. Rosenberg, a progressive Zionist activist who works for Israel Policy Forum, wrote that he was surprised by the attitudes expressed at a Washington social gathering where Carter’s book had come up. The book had empowered gentiles to voice criticisms they have long held.