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
Fox News not outraged by retailers’ War on Thanksgiving - As giant stores commercialize the last holdout, Bill O’Reilly & Co. shrug
BuzzFeed’s all-positive books section - It doesn’t make sense to pledge positivity if your aim is to provide readers with critics’ takes on new books. It makes more sense if your aim is to cultivate a thriving community.
Disappointing Deadspin - It broke the Manti Te’o story, but then stopped reporting and resumed trashing
Healthcare in Great Britain vs. healthcare in the USA: part one - A conversation with Chris Smyth, health reporter for The Times of London
Asperger’s, pedophiles, and questionable motivations - A dart to the Daily Beast, for its ill-informed speculation on Adam Lanza’s psyche
Email blasts from CJR writers and editors
Dasani is one of New York’s population of homeless children
The press on a gendered fMRI study
A Gawker editor tells how he picks ‘viral’ content readers can’t resist sharing
Military retracts Guantánamo PTSD claim
Timelapse of a photo-realistic painting of the actor being done on an iPad
Who Owns What
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.