Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
Stanley Kurtz apparently missed the memo on former Washington Monthly editor Nicholas Confessore’s move to the New York Times. Thus Kurtz’s “jaw dropped” when his eyes caught sight of Confessore’s byline in yesterday’s Week in Review section. And this is what he had to say about it: “Confessore’s piece on Social Security is a classic case of deep anti-Bush bias hiding behind a veneer of fairness. Jaded as I’ve become about the issue of bias at the New York Times, this absolutely floors me. Times ombudsman, Daniel Okrent, should answer for this. If the Times wants to hire partisans from both sides, that’s one thing. But they don’t.”
A quick trip down memory lane: Ezra Klein revives a campaign debate in a post titled, “I Actually Voted For the Farm Subsidies Before I Voted Against Them” calling out President Bush for slashing farm subsidies in the recent budget after expanding them in 2002. Klein explains, “The bill, by the way, is a good one aimed at ending one of America’s most disgraceful economic policies. But it really should end the discussion on whether or not Bush is a man of principle. It reverses legislation he supported and signed three years ago in the name of political expediency, and that shouldn’t be forgotten.”
Instapundit agrees with Klein, about cutting the subsidies, at least, calling it a “good idea,” but cautions, “I wouldn’t bet the, er, farm just yet.”
Why not? Virginia Postel explains:
If they thought Social Security was tough, wait ’til this firestorm hits. Senate Appropriations Committee chair Thad Cochrane says he’ll “work as hard as I can to oppose any changes.” Will other Republicans stand up for fiscal responsibility and market principles? Will conservative pundits make a big deal of this issue? Will the libertarians and liberals who’ve scored the Bush administration for its earlier fiscal (and trade) foolishness? In other words, is there any kind of vocal, principled coalition to balance the concentrated interests of subsidized agriculture? A few environmental groups can’t do it alone.
And finally, a few of our blogger friends on the right side of the aisle have pointed their readers to a “compelling takedown,” as The Corner’s John J. Miller puts it, of the Columbia Journalism Review, this publication’s sister-in-print, published in today’s Washington Examiner. But don’t worry, we’re not gonna do what you all think we’re gonna do, which is, you know, FLIP OUT! Instead, we direct you to CJR Executive Editor Mike Hoyt’s response that ran with said takedown. Happy reading.
–Thomas Lang
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
