What’s most problematic, though, is that under the framework for debate Hiatt sets up, there is one appropriate role for the opposition on national security issues: to demagogically demand that the party in power take a more hawkish approach. The impulse to find some grounds on which to attack the other side as “weak on terrorism”—regardless of the merits of that attack—inexorably ratchets policy in one direction, fosters unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved, and forecloses real debate about priorities and trade-offs. That doesn’t amount, in the end, to something that “can help America.”
09:13 AM - February 16, 2010
Sounding the Alarm, or Just Sounding Off?
Playing politics with national security may not be a great idea, after all
16 women whose digital startups deserve Vox-level plaudits - A look at the media entrepreneurs who aren’t grabbing headlines
Why was ‘Dasani’ shut out of the Pulitzers? - 5 problems with The New York Times’ ambitious, influential series on the life of one homeless Brooklyn girl
The AP downplays its Obamacare scoop - Repeal on deductible caps marks another step in The Great Cost Shift
The enduring pull of mag covers - Why do magazine cover images still hold so much cultural power in this decline-of-print era?
Michael Wolff’s digital media bloopers - The Newser founder trolls (other) digital-news companies
Email blasts from CJR writers and editors
“My belief … is that conservatism as we know it is doomed”
The proposal comes three months after a federal appeals court struck down, for the second time, agency rules intended to guarantee a free and open Internet
Michael Pollan thinks Wall Street has way too much influence over what we eat
“The core of what I do at Fusion will be post-text”
Louis CK is nonplussed at how ladies do it
Who Owns What
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.