In Limbaugh land, such comments qualify Raddatz as a far-far-lefty. What they really show, though, is a willingness to flatter those in power. And that, no doubt, helps explain why the debate commission chose her.
The Kicker
03:23 PM - August 22, 2012
Embed moderator
Only in Limbaugh land could Martha Raddatz be a lefty
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
Obama’s war on leaks undermines investigative journalism
“[T]he most militant I have seen since the Nixon administration”
‘It was approved at the highest levels— and I mean the highest’
Holder OK’d search warrant for Fox News reporter’s private emails, official says
If cable is dying, why is it still making so much money?
The story behind one of the best business models in the country
What TVGuide.com watchlist data reveals about the season’s new dramas
“What was once genre is now the Zeitgeist”
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
If anything, she is a statist or state-worshiper — no different from the typical MSM or AP staffer. And all those mentioned by Limbaugh fit the description. No lefty or righty tag necessary: support of aggressive war and imperial racketeering know no left-right bounds. "Patriotism" is a disease that does not discriminate along those lines.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 22 Aug 2012 at 07:08 PM
The premise of your piece, Mr Massing, assumes that liberals are somehow anti-military. I dispute that assumption. Liberals are not at all anti-military. Most liberals are against war, or against stupid, ill-conceived wars of choice based upon some daddy issues or someone's perceived shortcomings of chest-beating manhood (cf John McCain, Lindsay Graham, William Kristol). Many liberals are very much against expanding (or maintaining) the vast military-industrial complex, the draining of our national budget on billion dollar military boondoggles, the revolving door of military brass --> lobbyist for the military industrial machine. But that doesn't make them anti-military. That doesn't mean that liberals are against our troops and veterans.
I don't know (or care) whether Ms. Raddatz is liberal or whatever. It's irrelevant in the context of her problem with objectivity and maintaining standards of journalism. Many journalists have the same problem -- Judy Miller, famously, Walter Pincus, John Burns, Tom Ricks, and so on.
And along the lines of problems with objectivity, you make the mistake of accepting Rush Limbaugh's framing without any sort of reflection or intellectual effort. That's an bad mistake for a journalist and I hope you will rethink it.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 22 Aug 2012 at 11:32 PM