Slog Comments

 

Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Cato the Younger Younger 1
I've never read it before. I usually stick to The Nation and Mother Jones. But is American Prospect just a mouth piece for the DLC or is it REALLY liberal thought on current issues?
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on April 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM · Report this
2
Cato,
The American Prospect is certainly not as far left as The Nation, nor as idealistic as Mother Jones, but it's more serious than either, and much more interested in policy, ongoing projects, and serious thinking. It's also been a vitally important incubator for young liberal writers - pretty much everyone who wasn't a Nation Fellow worked at the Prospect, some worked at both.

It is closely aligned with the Center For American Progress (which is indeed very DLC-ish) in many of its policy preferences, but isn't in lockstep with them: its domestic goals in particular are well to the left of the DLC, and (critically) it has far fewer illusions about Bipartisanship and the goodwill of its Republican antagonists.

My main criticism of the Prospect would probably be that in avoiding the nonsense that often characterizes the Nation and the pox-on-both-their-houses purist passion that often characterizes Mother Jones (and I honor many things about both magazines, and subscribe to both), it can often be a bit dull. But it's about as good a place as I know in print to get an education about what the liberal policy intelligentsia are up to - think of it as an Economist for the American Center Left (not the "Centrists"), without the globetrotting.
Posted by Warren Terra on April 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM · Report this
3
@1 -- Whatever it was, the Prospect was never a DLC voice.

I don't think it played an important role in Fallows career development either.

I quit reading it altogether a couple years back. Too much agenda-driven content. (By that I don't mean agenda-driven themes, or agenda-driven arguments. I mean agenda-driven but false or baseless factual premises.) I don't even remember what the last straw was.

Posted by RonK, Seattle on April 30, 2012 at 1:18 PM · Report this
Geocrackr 4
America has a progressive infrastructure?
Posted by Geocrackr on April 30, 2012 at 1:28 PM · Report this
5
Call me heartless, but a "progressive" outlet whose existence is fully dependent on dead trees is not all that progressive. Electrons are where it's at, or didn't they hear? It is, you know, progress.
Posted by K on April 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 6

Too bad SLOG isn't run by capitalists...they would be doing cartwheels at a suggestion of their competitor's demise.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on April 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM · Report this
7
@#6
You really think a DC-based national liberal policy and politics magazine is a competitor for Seattle's Alt-Weekly?

Also, per Eli's post, The American Prospect has in a sense subsidized The Stranger by making it possible for writers at The Stranger (or, at least, Eli) to get paying outside work, without which they'd have to quit The Stranger or demand more money from it.
Posted by Warren Terra on April 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM · Report this
8
But....

I thought America was running to the left pell mell! I thought gay special rights and stealing money from smart productive citizens to feed, house, clothe, provide medical and child care and basically do everything but wipe after going to the bathroom as government policy for the lazy was SO popular! I thought young poeple exclusively believe the rabid mouthings of the far left!

So in this environment, how can Fox thrive while lefty media dies all the time? (Remember Air America, guys? So it isn't just print media, it's the message of the left that isn't in demand.)
Posted by Seattleblues on April 30, 2012 at 2:20 PM · Report this
the idiot formerly known as kk 9
I like the American Prospect, but it was not an incubator for James Fallows. He was the Washington Editor for The Atlantic 11 years before the Prospect was founded (not to mention editor of the Harvard Crimson). He was also a speechwriter in the Carter White House.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on April 30, 2012 at 2:42 PM · Report this
Vince 10
It's a new world and you must evolve a solution in it. There will be room for gonzo journalism and progressive and investigative as well but under new umbrellas and new infrastructure and new models. The dominant paradigm has already shifted.
Posted by Vince on April 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM · Report this
11
It takes a somber idiot like SeattleBlah to compare the income generating abilities of a corporate mouth piece like Fox to that of a small progressive radio like Air America, or that of the American Prospect with perennially money losing New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, etc. who wouldn't survive if it weren't for the deep pockets and propagandist needs of Murdoch's and Rev Moon.
Posted by anon1256 on April 30, 2012 at 3:12 PM · Report this
MarkyMark 12
This reminds me of a certain movie theater down in Columbia City...
Posted by MarkyMark on April 30, 2012 at 3:31 PM · Report this
Vince 13
@11 The Fox model is to latch onto the cable that millions pay for without thinking. It is why I have been on my own little crusade to get people to realise what it is they are paying their money for. If Fox were forced to stand on their own like the Networks they would fail.
Posted by Vince on April 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM · Report this
14
@11

It takes a rabid ideologue not to realize that media providers sell what's in demand. See, if I'm selling advertising I sell it based on the audience I can produce. So for instance the Seattle Times is owned by a conservative but puts out largely liberal bias for the liberally biased Seattle audience. Fox can produce the audience to suport the advertising that makes them profitable. Air America could not. Certainly some of that audience listens for the pleasant frisson of outrage as they hear a viewpoint with which they disagree. I've done that with America hating idiots like Norman Goldman or Schultz or Rachel Maddow. But I don't do it often, and I can't imagine you on the left do either with pompous windbags like Limbaugh.

Dislike that the demand is there for Murdochs product- well and good. I dislike that the demand is there for Dan Savage to spew his bigotry and hatred and moral corruption to college kids. So I can work with my kids to make sure they realize that Maddow and Schultz and Savage are speaking from a position of bigotry and hatred and dislike of this country. I can encourage other likeminded parents to do likewise. Or I can whine about the demand for these racous voices of moral decay and social disorder and chaos. Personally, I prefer something that actually accomplishes an end, but that's just me.
Posted by Seattleblues on April 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM · Report this
15
@12, Why don't you get a honest job instead of spewing your hate filled diatribes on Slog all day long? Some of us have to work hard to support their families, lazy wanker.
Posted by anon1256 on April 30, 2012 at 4:11 PM · Report this
16
oops, @14 of course.
Posted by anon1256 on April 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM · Report this
17
@#14
Sure, Fox News makes money, and #11 was foolish to invoke it.

But the comparison isn't to Fox News, it's to all the other journals or politics, policy, and opinion - and to right wing propaganda megaphones purporting to be news organizations, like the New York Post and the Washington Times. The annual losses of those institutions are on an epic scale, covered by the deep pockets of right-wing billionaires and by right-wing CEOs using the funds of corporations they head to pursue their personal agendas.

I'm not sure any glossy magazine that specializes in text (thus excluding celebrity, fashion, and hobbyist magazines) is making money these days; certainly no political magazine is. The closest in recent years was The Nation which saw its subscription base skyrocket in response to the outrages of Dubya, and their "profits" were more like Breaking Even With Style.
Posted by Warren Terra on April 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM · Report this
18
@17, I didn't invoke Fox. The troll compared Fox that thrives with Air America that didn't thrive. It's like comparing a news media that needs commercialism to thrive (Air America)
and a commercial enterprise that makes up "news" for filler in between ads (Fox).

Moreover, Air America's inability to generate ad revenue had more to do than just with the size of their audience: "An internal ABC Radio Networks memo obtained by Media Matters for America, originally from a listener to The Peter B. Collins Show, indicates that nearly 100 ABC advertisers insist that their commercials be blacked out on Air America Radio affiliates. According to the memo, the advertisers insist that "NONE of their commercials air during AIR AMERICA programming." Among the advertisers listed are Bank of America, Exxon Mobil, Federal Express, General Electric, McDonald's, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and the U.S. Navy."
http://mediamatters.org/research/2006103…
Posted by anon1256 on April 30, 2012 at 4:58 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.