Did Atlantic Monthly support the war?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I have already ended my subscription to New Republic after their support and subsequent attempt at a defense for that position in their latest issue. I was considering subscribing to Atlantic but I can't recall where the editorial staff stood on the war, anyone remember?

― Daziz, Friday, 18 June 2004 18:26 (twenty-two years ago)

You should subscribe to Ladies Home Journal.

― St. Nicholas Ridiculous (Nick A.), Friday, 18 June 2004 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I believe they supported the war, but I'm not 100% sure. (Support certainly seemed implied by some of the stories they were running in the lead up to the war.) I don't like Atlantic's politics overall, but I still find worthwhile articles there.

― Rockist Scientist, Friday, 18 June 2004 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Why only read those who agree with you?

― bnw (bnw), Friday, 18 June 2004 19:13 (twenty-two years ago)

The former editor, Micheal Kelly, did. He died in Iraq while reporting on the war. It's a good magazine.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 18 June 2004 19:15 (twenty-two years ago)

The Atlantic is a solid magazine, and there are certainly many good reasons to read it. James Fallows has been way ahead in reporting on conflicts between Defense and State, for example.

I'm with bnw in wondering why you'd only want to read those who agree with you. Now, I can understand perhaps not wanting to give someone you disagree with your money by subscribing. But I think that only reading those outlets which flatter your politics and your preconceptions isn't healthy.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Friday, 18 June 2004 19:19 (twenty-two years ago)

you're right Rasheed, my reason is simply monetary. i don't want to give money to those I disagree with on this issue. I certainly read the online versions of NRO and the Nation and other magazines like those which i disagree with strongly on many issues.

― Daziz, Friday, 18 June 2004 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Harper's?

― paulhw (paulhw), Friday, 18 June 2004 20:03 (twenty-two years ago)

the atlantic is a really good magazine, in general, whatever their stance on the war (and of course they have many contributors, not all of whom necessarily share the politics of the editors). i don't really understand why you'd rather give money to, i dunno, katrina vanden-heuvel.

harper's definitely opposed the war, what with lewis lapham and all.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 18 June 2004 20:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't really regard the Atlantic as having an editorial position of any kind. They print people from across the spectrum, though most are from the center-left, with few regular contributors. If you can assign politics to them, they are to the left of the New Republic and to the right of the Nation.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 18 June 2004 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

And it's the best of its kind.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 18 June 2004 20:22 (twenty-two years ago)

robert kaplan surely supported the war. but i don't think he quite counts as "the atlantic"

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Friday, 18 June 2004 20:27 (twenty-two years ago)

y'know how the New Republic is known as "even the liberal New Republic," since it supports so many right-wing Liebermanesque policies? Well, the Atlantic is kind of the conservative version. It's like John McCain, but without the charisma.

― Symplistic (shmuel), Saturday, 19 June 2004 01:16 (twenty-two years ago)

the new republic is somewhat more israel-centric than the others--one headline after 9/11 was 'we are all israelis now'--and was subsequently more enthusiastic about bold american moves in the middle east

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Saturday, 19 June 2004 01:21 (twenty-two years ago)

The Atlantic fluctuates magnificently in its politics -- although it seems to be more issue-to-issue rather than article-to-article. Although perhaps it's just that they're pro-war and anti-Bush.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 19 June 2004 04:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I used to subscribe to the Atlantic, I should get it again - it's worth it - never saw them as having any definitive editorial stance, and I did read it during the runup to the war. Better than the New Republic who just.. well, I can't read their articles without imagining that they all live 24-7 in a cramped office tower full of cubicles and no sunlight and bad instant coffee and are highly suspicious of anything unserious. (And are there any women around there? at all?)

Both mags print writers that regularly make me want to tear my hair out but the New Republic seems particularly dour and miserable about it. Liebermanesque is the word, actually, reading TNR is as exciting as one of his campaign rallies in New Hampshire when he proudly declared that some Joementum was going on..

― daria g (daria g), Saturday, 19 June 2004 22:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Daria, be excited! This is Joe-mentum here on ILX!

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/16/convention.wrap.02/gallery/1.jpg

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 19 June 2004 22:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey! Que Pasa, Hadassah?

― daria g (daria g), Saturday, 19 June 2004 23:09 (twenty-two years ago)

TNR suffers from a crippling desire to be contrary on everything, which ties it into all kinds of uncomfortable knots -- though as a reader I think that has a certain kind of allure. (You see them down in the hole, but yet you don't want them to stop digging.) TNR's editorial-we opinions are usually irksome at best, but at least they're interesting. That's more than I can say for the Nation, which is woefully predictable.

One other thing: TNR's campaign reporter Ryan Lizza is really, really good.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Sunday, 20 June 2004 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Ryan Lizza is getting married today, says the NYT

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 20 June 2004 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.