This Week: The Nation Continues to Be Irrelevant
By Saxon Baird - Aug 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pmThe articles filling up my Google Reader from The Nation are tempting me to delete the magazine from my feeds. This well-established publication isn’t providing me with material that’s fresh, groundbreaking, or even a bit thought-provoking anymore. A quick look at a couple articles from this week is proof enough that The Nation is becoming increasingly insignificant and, frankly, a snooze. Here are some examples:
* John Nichols, whose blog description reads, “Breaking news and analysis on the political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore,” wrote a post today on how China has failed to keep its promise to the International Olympic Committee to improve its human rights standards. Really, John? This topic has been covered comprehensively in publications from all over the political spectrum; there have been pieces in The Guardian, Foreign Affairs, and your own publication. Tell us something we don’t know, Nichols. Journalism 101, right?
* An article by Nation intern Andy Kroll officially beats the “Is the GOP too old and out of touch?” question from a dead horse into dust by (you guessed it!) asking in its headline, “Does GOP stand for Grampa’s Old Politics?” Well, one thing is for sure–that horrible headline would certainly make Grampa laugh.
The article proceeds to take John McCain’s admission that he’s computer illiterate (which he made in January) and examines how his campaign faces a “daunting challenge” in being able to sell the aging senator to “a technologically dependent generation with whom he has practically nothing in common.” Everybody from The Wall Street Journal (in Feburary!) to Huckabee lover Chuck Norris to mainstream CBS has talked about this. So why in the hell would you run this piece now?
* The William Greider cover story, “Economic Free Fall,” gave me hope that it would contain interesting and provocative information that could shed light on our country’s dire economic straits. Unfortunately, it turned out to be an inaccessible 2,700 word piece that at times reads more like a rant on what’s wrong with our government and America than an informative and constructive critique of our economic missteps. This article was enough to alienate me, let alone anyone who goes into it skeptical of Greider’s argument. Admittedly, the end of the piece does give a couple of suggestions for alleviating the economy’s recession. But good luck in getting that far.
Dear The Nation,
Please get with it. You’re no longer interesting and are quickly becoming irrelevant. And that bothers me because you’re such an important counterpoint to conservative-dominated political media. So please try to stop preaching to the choir for one second, or at least provide that choir with something new and thought-provoking. I give you a week to give me something worthwhile to read. It shouldn’t be too hard. I’m a typical 24-year-old kid who likes indie rock, cares about the environment, and worries about his future way too much. In other words, I should be your target audience. So why don’t you start targeting me a little?
Sincerely,
Saxon Baird
I’m not sure you’re their target audience…
August 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pmSaxon, while you do have some legitimate points with the articles you mentioned, I actually strongly disagree with your overall conclusion that The Nation is irrelevant. The all-stars of progressive journalism write for The Nation including Naomi Klein and Eric Alterman, not mention the long list who freelance for the magazine (including a great feature story by Thomas Frank that’s up on the website now). A lot of young journalists write for The Nation too including Ari Berman. Jeremy Scahill, who wrote the book on Blackwater and broke the story of the U.S. contracting out duties to private mercenaries, is a Nation Foundation writing fellow.
Also, it is the slowest news month of the year right now. The Nation actually prints bi-weekly for most of the summer instead of its usual weekly presence. Congress is in recess, Bush and the rest of the world are either on vacation or watching the Olympics or both. What articles would you like to see written that aren’t currently being covered? That would be a lot more productive than generalizing out about a publication that has been around since 1865 with one blog post and two select articles.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:12 pmSaxon, Thanks for the input. We’re happy to be pushed back at — much better than being ignored — but it does seem as if you cherry-picked a few select articles to trash the mag — I can’t imagine you’re really as poor a reader as your post suggests.
Thomas cites a few examples of regular Nation writers you cd’ve focused on if you were trying to honestly evaluate the publication’s relevance. There are many others. You cd’ve mentioned our editor Katrina vanden Heuvel’s post on Alaska’s amazing Cong candidate Diane Benson,a former trucker who has a chance to become the first Native American member of Congress ever. I’m sure you know all about her but many others haven’t heard of her and she hasn’t been getting much nat’l press.We also have a young sportswriter, Dave Zirin, writing about China’s banning of Joey Cheek which is a good story that I know you’re very on top but that the MSM has been pretty poor at covering. We’ve also had a very good young blogger named Michael Connery guest blogging for us for the last TWO MONTHS doing nothing other than reporting what few other entities are saying about your generation and the election. These three are just examples of pieces that a fair reading of our site and our relevance cd’ve taken into account. There are many more. But I’m not uninterested in your critique. Pls let me kn ow what issues you think we should be taking up and I’ll read it with interest.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pmSometimes, I feel like the Nation gets really wrapped up in itself and is so “progressive” that it is really unwilling to accept any other political positions other than its own. While I (generally) agree with the articles, there are instances where they don’t invoke anything other than an eye-roll from myself. I understand “nobody owns the Nation” which leaves them free to, basically, print whatever they want. To me, however, the political bias with The Nation is sort of a flip-side to Fox News where the issues presented are so one-sided that they basically become a representative of the extreme school of thought on one end of the political spectrum - not representative of a more central-leftist point of view.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:01 pmChris — Thanks for writing. We contend that we’re not the flip side of Fox, just as I’d argue that Campus Progress is not the flip side of many Rt-wing student media efforts, b/c we get our facts straight. I’d argue that Fox actively distorts and dissembles and even actively spins things in directions that even they know are untrue. And I don’t think this takes place at The Nation. There’s bias of course but not outright and active manipulation of the news. I think that’s an impt distinction.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:08 pmDear Saxon:
Define your parameters of “relevance” and “thought-provocation.” Also, point me to a progressive publication that tackles socio-political issues with more unassailable prowess and intellect than The Nation.
You’ve got the whole idea of The Nation backward. They don’t run sensational, glossy-sounding muck because they’re a response to exaggeration and contrived hype that’s so prevalent on newsstands. They’re sole mission is not to entertain ADD-afflicted, stimuli-deprived 20-somethings; they seek to inform a readership concerned with upholding civil rights, social justice, and democracy.
You’re whole post comes off as self-important and adolescently whiny: You suck, Nation. Why? Because I think you’re boring! You need to change. Why? Because I’m bored!
The Nation has supported, inspired, and launched writers like Hunter S. Thomas, Bill Moyers, and Jean-Paul Sartre. They’ve been the backbone of the national progressive coalition since 1865. Writers for The Nation don’t sit around in their offices and naval-gaze while bloviating about the latest neo-conservative gaffe, they’re activists and organizers for the nation’s progressive coalition.
Admittingly, the average Nation reader is not a 25-year-old indie rock kid. And political publications — not just The Nation — have a hard time engaging with young folks, because 20-somethings are usually cash-strapped and mobile (low circ for young people), don’t check Talking Points Memo like they do Pitchfork, and find vacuous magazines about celebrity debauchery and make out tips more attractive than political commentary.
So sorry The Nation bores you, Saxon. But I feel like this is more of a personal than a national outcry. Over 185,000 people receive The Nation every week on their doorstep. They seem to be pretty satisfied with The Nation’s highbrow, ‘inaccessible,’ ‘boring’ copy.
(Full Disclosure: I’ve been a Nation subscriber for four years and currently intern there).
August 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pmBobby you said it much better than I did. I wholeheartedly agree.
August 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pmOh Saxon…always one to start shit. However, the Nation has been putting me to sleep for at least a year now…
August 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pmLet me start by saying that I do fall in the same demographic as Saxon.
I was initially going to post to say that I don’t necessarily agree with him, and that the commenters above who cried “cherry-picking” probably had a point.
But I don’t read The Nation. It’s not that I dislike it at all—I respect the publication and read the website occasionally, but I get the majority of my news and political thought elsewhere. I guess I don’t know where I stand here. Interesting back-and-forth, though.
August 9th, 2008 at 4:33 amSaxon — Are you really not going to tell me what issues you think The Nation can take up to become less engaging to young readers? What’s the pt of blogging if you’re not interested in the conversation?
August 12th, 2008 at 10:02 amThank you anonymous,
I love engaging with non-entities through the internet. Peter? Is that you behind the anonymous cloak of computer screens and modems? I’m glad that you have the time to type out 800 word comments on our blog. Not doing too much over there at The Nation? Oh right, it’s August and there is nothing really to talk about, right?
First off, I didn’t think you actually wanted to engage in a conversation. The condescending tone of your first comment about my reading habits only further attests to the elitist nature that characterizes The Nation. Why else would a publication feel so entitled to print a 3,000 word rant about the economy and actually believe people will read it or that it will make a difference? Why else would it run an article about the Russian-Georgia conflict, offensively titled “Getting Georgia’s War On,” as a way to bash McCain’s stance on war and the conflict at hand? In the inarticulate yet wholly recognizable vernacular of my generation: “Like duh, dude.”
But I don’t find it necessary to expound lengthily on my problems with The Nation. It would be way too Nation-like. However, let me ask you a question: who is The Nation trying to reach? If it is an older generation of left leaning readers then perhaps I should stop my complaints right now, delete them from my feed, and wait until I’m 40 before picking up another issue. If it is my generation then you are failing miserably due to student focused articles that are out of touch, an unattractive aesthetic that is inaccessible and unappealing, content that fails to engage the reader in any interesting way and a constant regulation of arts and culture to the back pages.
This staunch refusal to change and continually churn out page after page of snooze-worthy content exhibits (to me and many of my friends at least) The Nation as an elitist, self-righteous publication that is more interested in deepening the divide between polar political stances than attempting to constructive critique, create real change and establish real dialogue. It feels like The Nation seems to forget about its reader and in doing so is only alienating more than engaging them. Which leads me again to question: who are you trying to reach? Is the Nation at all trying to reach across the divide to centrist or conservatives or even the youth through revelatory content that could enlighten hearts and minds? Hardly. Your articles are bloated, uninteresting and not telling me anything (most of the time) that I didn’t already know, believe or have read. Give me something where I can turn to either my republican grandma and/or my friends and be like read this and they will. How? Approach a subject as if you were speaking to both. It’s not like it can’t be done. There are plenty of publications out there that do such.
Alas Peter, I don’t really know what this conversation is going to do. I mean this was so last week. Besides, do you have the power to make a difference with The Nation? I doubt it. Furthermore, why continually obsess over this critique. What I’ve stated in this already lengthy response is really nothing different that I didn’t already exhibit in my original post. If you want to continue this conversation I think you have an idea of where I work and contact info of at least three people in my office Coffee maybe? Oh and if you we do get a cup of joe….think you could bring me a free copy of the latest Nation? I always need a little something to help me get to sleep easier.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:34 amA Genuine Univers1ty Degree 1n 4-6 weeks!
Have you ever thought that theo nly thing stopping you from a great job and better pay was a few letters behind you name?
Well now you can get them!
BA BSc MA MSc MBA PhD
Within -46 weeks!
August 12th, 2008 at 11:47 amNo Study Required!
100% Verifiable!
saxon, stop sippin that haterade. you are spilling it on the wrong issues.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:49 amSaxon, thanks for saying what we’ve all been thinking. Please continue starting shit and promoting the ire of various bloggers and publishers. I myself intend to pick another fight with Pitchfork Media this week…
Hells yeah.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:53 pm