Read on Twitter
When Conor started in journalism, the outer boundaries of foreign policy at TNR stretched from "We should bomb Iraq" all the way to "We should bomb Iraq and then send in ground troops." https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1283261938990903302
When Conor started in journalism, the scope of Marty Peretz's bigotry was well known and (as we learned following his cancellation by Nick Kristof) much discussed by staff -- in private. Never in public. In public, they were expected to self-censor.
When Conor started in journalism, Israel and Israel-related matters at TNR were a "red line". @mattyglesias do I have that right? And that if you crossed that line, you'd never get published? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/01/clark-anti-semitism-etc/41284/
When Conor started in journalism, the atmosphere at TNR was so poisonously hostile to black writers that few seem to have lasted there for very long, and of those who did, their ability to shape race coverage was essentially nil. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-new-republic-an-appreciation/383561/
When Conor started in journalism, TNR functioned as "a kind of ideological police dog," one whose role was to "[define] the borders of 'responsible' liberal discourse, thereby tarring anyone who disagreed as irresponsible or untrustworthy." https://prospect.org/culture/new-republic-trouble-long-chris-hughes-bought/
When Conor started in journalism, TNR had just fired its editor-in-chief because he had been critical of Al Gore, a close personal friend of the magazine's owner. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/06/arts/new-republic-editor-dismissed-over-criticism.html
Is Conor right? Was the TNR of the 1990s and 2000s more ideologically diverse than National Review? If so, what a damning indictment of National Review.
