Slate Revisited

Enough people in the business have gotten in touch with me in a hurry to dispute the idea that Slate is a center-right publication that I'm starting to have some doubts. And I'll admit that while I look at Slate all the time, I'm not a particularly thorough reader of it and the Mickey Kaus phenomenon looms large in my mind. I suppose I could take some time to do a thorough content analysis and see whether material that criticizes liberals or liberal positions outnumbers material that criticizes conservatives or conservative positions but that sounds boring and tedious. So I dunno, was I wrong about that?

Another thought on the general subject, is that I've noticed that a lot of people in the field of journalism have a tendency to judge the political proclivities of a publication by the subjective mental states of the staff. The correct way, however, is to look at what's on the pages. Having three socialists doing page layout, two moderate conservative writing features on political relevant topics, and one moderately liberal film critic does not a left-of-center publication make. Similarly, if in order to be "interesting" and "provocative" your publication contains some articles in which heterodox liberals challenge liberal conventional wisdom and other articles in which conservatives challenge liberal conventional wisdom, then your publication is mostly publishing conservative content.

Comments

Saletan!

Posted by nitpicker | August 1, 2008 12:12 PM

I don't think of Slate as left or right, just as endlessly contrarian. If the major media narrative of the day is center-left, Slate's articles read like a center-right counterargument, and vice-versa. I'm not sure I'd say one situation happens more than the other.

Posted by right | August 1, 2008 12:20 PM

your publication contains some articles in which heterodox liberals challenge liberal conventional wisdom and other articles in which conservatives challenge liberal conventional wisdom, then your publication is mostly publishing conservative content

Huh?

Why does any challenge to liberal conventional wisdom automatically conservative? That doesn't make sense. A publication that contains articles by heterodox liberals challenging liberal conventional wisdom is liberal. A publication that contains articles by conservatives challenging liberal conventional wisdom is conservative. A publication that contains both is... moderate.

Posted by Al | August 1, 2008 12:21 PM

Dahlia Lithwick sticks out like a sore thumb among the Slate writing staff. That's pretty good support for your argument.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 1, 2008 12:22 PM

News Flash: By world standards, the American left is right of center.

Posted by stick | August 1, 2008 12:23 PM

Matt, that's actually "Republican blogger Mickey Kaus" on first reference.

Posted by Jeff Larson | August 1, 2008 12:25 PM

Dahlia Lithwick and Tim Noah.

That they've published that idiot glibertarian Steven Landsburg for so long is inexcusable. Why he wants people to think a social science, economics, is just about being an asshole, I don't know.

Posted by Chris | August 1, 2008 12:26 PM

I'm sure you will be forwarded dozens of copies of this link from outraged conservatives.

That said, you make a good point about the distinction between the political leanings of the staff and the political implications of the content. And as others have already pointed out, Slate's true core ideological commitment is to knee-jerk contrarianism.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | August 1, 2008 12:27 PM

"I don't think of Slate as left or right, just as endlessly contrarian."

This may be the only time in my life I say this, but I pretty much agree with Jonah Goldberg:

http://www.slate.com/id/2143233/

Posted by Andrew | August 1, 2008 12:29 PM

"Enough people in the business have gotten in touch with me in a hurry "

This seems to me evidence that people in the business are out of touch with reality.

I just went to their 2008 Campaign article lineup, and half the articles are Mickey Kaus, another quarter of the articles are John Dickerson(who most definately leans right), and then there is one article from Bruce Reed and another from Hitchens, both of whom lean right. Oh, and then there's a Fred Kaplan article who is more of a moderate, and two news articles on Obama which I guess you could call left even though they are just news and actually parrot right-wing talking points without fail.

Posted by The Other Steve | August 1, 2008 12:29 PM

I think any establishment that publishes material arguing that black people are inherently less intelligent than white people cannot be considered liberal.

Posted by rick | August 1, 2008 12:29 PM

That they've published that idiot glibertarian Steven Landsburg for so long is inexcusable. Why he wants people to think a social science, economics, is just about being an asshole, I don't know.

That guy really is unbelievable, isn't he? I don't even know how to regard him, except with dismissive bemusement. He's certainly not a fifth as insightful as he thinks he is.

Posted by Kevin | August 1, 2008 12:31 PM

I don't think of Slate as left or right, just as endlessly contrarian.
===
I second that. Sometimes it's interesting, but often it's that annoying "I know you think X is obvious, so watch how clever I am as I argue Y" discourse that I outgrew in college.

I think it comes from their first editor Michael Kinsley, who 1) loves contrarian pieces and 2) is really, really smart. What I see in Slate is a lot of writers trying to do the Kinsley thing, but they aren't as smart and so it often falls flat.

FWIW I read them a lot less since their site redesign last year. I just think it's a horrible look and feel. It's hard to find authors and posts I'm looking for (Fred Kaplan, Dahlia Lithwick, um, Dear Prudence...) and unpleasant on the eyes.

Posted by hubcap | August 1, 2008 12:31 PM

1. Your first impulse was correct. Slate is center-right with a dash of libertarian quirkiness.

2. Slate IS contrarian, but it is a contrarianism which supports center-right views. Actual left contrarianism is rare. (This is addressed to the second commenter.)

3. What? Are William Saletan and Christopher Hitchens supposed to be iconoclastic liberals or something? Saletan has never met a dna-based just-so story he didn't like; Hitchens is simply all over the map.

4. Ann Applebaum. Yick.

5. Al, that what you wrote is lame.

Posted by BMW | August 1, 2008 12:32 PM

1. Your first impulse was correct. Slate is center-right with a dash of libertarian quirkiness.

2. Slate IS contrarian, but it is a contrarianism which supports center-right views. Actual left contrarianism is rare. (This is addressed to the second commenter.)

3. What? Are William Saletan and Christopher Hitchens supposed to be iconoclastic liberals or something? Saletan has never met a dna-based just-so story he didn't like; Hitchens is simply all over the map.

4. Ann Applebaum. Yick.

5. Al, that what you wrote is lame.

6. The influence of the Washington Post.

Posted by BMW | August 1, 2008 12:39 PM

Who gives a crap? Slate sucks either way.

Posted by 55 | August 1, 2008 12:39 PM

I suppose I could take some time to do a thorough content analysis and see whether material that criticizes liberals or liberal positions outnumbers material that criticizes conservatives or conservative positions but that sounds boring and tedious.

That sounds indeed tedious, but a good place to start would be How I got it wrong on Iraq. Editor in chief Weisberg's answer: I believed the groupthink and contributed to it. Not much "challenging of conventional wisdom" back then, but at least some of them are honest with themselves - except for Hitchens of course ...

Posted by novakant | August 1, 2008 12:40 PM

I have not looked at Slate to any extent for several years, but immediately after Sept 11 it seemed more like a Neocon mag than a liberal one.

Actually, I should say "than a progressive one". Because while progressive Internet sites like Common Dreams , Smirking Chimp, etc started looking at the mercantile and donor interests driving Bush's Middle East policy, some allegedly liberal sites like Slate and the Nation were obviously in the tank for Bush and Big Oil.

And they made a BIG effort to shout down anyone who tried to point out that Bin Laden had said in 1997 why Al Qaeda was declaring war on the USA -- and that it was NOT because "they hate our freedom". It was because of long time murderous acts by the US government in the Middle East -- acts done FOR the benefit of wealthy interests and NOT for the benefit of America.

What was shocking was how Nation and Slate leaped to whore for those wealthy interests just as quickly as Washington Post, New York Times, ABC News, and CNN. Including a massive coverup of how those wealthy interests manipulations abroad had brought disaster to America.

It was impossible, for example, to get anyone in the "Mainstream News Media" to look at what the US had been doing in Afghanistan and Central Asia on behalf of Chevron's move to grab Caspian Sea oil --even though the information was readily out there. Oil industry trade publications made no secret of what Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney had been doing on Kazakhstan's Energy Board.

Posted by Don Williams | August 1, 2008 12:42 PM

I agree with "right." Slate suffers from a severe case of Kinsleyism: smart-ass, too-clever, debate-team contrarianism. They can feel at times "center-right" since they feel their audience is "center-left"; therefore, according to the dictates of Kinsleyism, "center-right" they must be.

It also shows how far the center has moved to the right, especially among "people in the business." Thirty years ago it would be considered a liberal Republican.

Lithwick, their Supreme Court reporter, is firmly center-left, the rest of the women writers are more or less center-left, except for that red-headed "advice" chick from DC, who comes across as a hipster Junior League member. Shafer is usually center-left, Dickinson is a DLC-style Democrat (would be a Rockefeller Republican if they existed anymore). Saleton and Weisberg are practicing Kinsleyists. Mickey Kaus is a creepy douchebag who hits an any Venice Beach female with two legs (not sure if he's still passing out his "mix tapes", but man, eh sure did creep pout some women).

Posted by Shine | August 1, 2008 12:42 PM

William "blacks is teh dumm, suck it librals" Saltean

Mickey "I'm not a democrat, but I play one in my blog" Kaus

Chris "Iraq war RULEZ suck it librals" Hitchens

Emily "Don't worry about global warming because it's scary and Gore is fat" Yoffe

John "McCain and Obama don't think that differently on Iraq" Dickerson (NOTE: verbatim quote!)

Jack "If the National Enquirer says something about a Democrat, the MSM better report it!" Shaffer

And the XX Factor is mostly unreadable, as most of the participants are Yoffe-ish Maureen Dowd wannabes.

So I'm going to guardedly back Matt up here--I would guess that Slate thinks of itself as contrarian center-left, but that contrarianism always manages to lend them on the right side of the ledger. Lithwick and a lot of their cultural coverage keeps them from being a solidly-right outfit, but, while they can be critical of Bush et al, they seem to be among the many media outlets who overcompensate for the fear of being tagged as part of the "liberal media" by subjecting any leftish position to ridiculously more unconstructive criticism than anything the right throws out these.

Posted by Later Slater | August 1, 2008 12:47 PM

1. Your first impulse was correct. Slate is center-right with a dash of libertarian quirkiness.

2. Slate IS contrarian, but it is a contrarianism which supports center-right views. Actual left contrarianism is rare. (This is addressed to the second commenter.)

3. What? Are William Saletan and Christopher Hitchens supposed to be iconoclastic liberals or something? Saletan has never met a dna-based just-so story he didn't like; Hitchens is simply all over the map.

4. Ann Applebaum. Yick.

5. Al, that what you wrote is lame.

6. The influence of the Washington Post.

Posted by BMW | August 1, 2008 12:47 PM

I occasionally read Dahlia Lithwick and Fred Kaplan, but otherwise I stopped bothering with Slate some time ago, and I don't really feel less informed because of it. I enjoy anti-CW, contrarian takes on issues, but I don't even really think that's what the publication is about--John Dickerson hews about as close to the conventional wisdom as any political reporter I've observed. Usually it's lots of stories about stuff like, "Were you told as a child that candy was bad for you? Well, a new study from Southeastern Oklahoma State University says differently..." and Hitchens' godawful writing. He's always provocative but never persuasive. He's further proof for the notion that alcohol kills brain cells, though I'm sure Slate will have a piece highlighting some obscure study to rebut that by the end of the day.

Posted by Lev | August 1, 2008 12:48 PM

Tim Noah? The guy who said "Bully for him" in response to Bush commuting Scooter Libby's prison sentence for helping cover up the White House's treason? He even wrote, "many people with politics similar to my own to cry bloody murder." Contrarian! Mavericky! Perfectly illustrates Matt's point. Noah claims that his own political orientation would argue against his position, and yet that's the position he takes. So how can that be his political orientation? Also, if Al says Slate is moderate, that pretty much proves it's conservative.

Posted by bobbo | August 1, 2008 12:50 PM

I occasionally read Dahlia Lithwick and Fred Kaplan, but otherwise I stopped bothering with Slate some time ago, and I don't really feel less informed because of it. I enjoy anti-CW, contrarian takes on issues, but I don't even really think that's what the publication is about--John Dickerson hews about as close to the conventional wisdom as any political reporter I've observed. Usually it's lots of stories about stuff like, "Were you told as a child that candy was bad for you? Well, a new study from Southeastern Oklahoma State University says differently..." and Hitchens' godawful writing. He's always provocative but never persuasive. He's further proof for the notion that alcohol kills brain cells, though I'm sure Slate will have a piece highlighting some obscure study to rebut that by the end of the day.

Posted by Lev | August 1, 2008 12:51 PM

Yeah, Landsburg writes the way econ undergrads joke around, but he actually wants you to take it seriously. Yeesh.

I just read a book of Kinsley's old columns from the 1980s (you can get them for $0.01 + shipping on Amazon). He's a great demonstration of how to be fair, sensible, and liberal.

He also manages to tie the contrarian schtick to basic human decency. Too many writers wind up writing modest proposals without realizing it.

Posted by Chris | August 1, 2008 12:54 PM

Those media types are hilarious. I have a very liberal friend who works as an editor at the Hoover Institute -- I guess this means it's really a liberal thinktank? Reminds me of Ms. Dowd wondering why people complain about her -- after all, she voted for Gore!

Posted by mary | August 1, 2008 1:00 PM

I've always felt that Slate was center right publication but one that didn't realize it was center right.

They also seemed to have this kind of soft-headedness wherein the dotcom-inflected tonalities of Brooksian/Gladwellian/Friedmanish social analysis seemed, in the ears of the writers, to drown out obvious, logical objections to the premises of their articles. They leaped to conclusions a lot and when you interrogated their arguments a little, hemmed in their broadbrush, almost new-agy generalizations with reason, the ideas you were left with were narrow to the point of obviousness.

One saving grace is that they seem to publish a lot of freelance work so there was some real variety at the fringes.

Posted by MrTimbo | August 1, 2008 1:01 PM

1) As an example of how Slate was in the tank for Bush/Cheney after Sept l1, See Damien Cave's "Stuck in the Gulf" at http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/10/29/central_asian_oil/index.html . The opening:

"Any war worth its salt deserves a nifty conspiracy theory, and the war on terrorism is no exception. Here's how it goes: the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan is not really aimed at toppling the Taliban and nabbing Osama bin Laden, it's about gaining access to Central Asian oil and natural gas. Just as in the Gulf War, American troops are fighting to keep gasoline prices low and factories humming, led by a commander-in-chief with intimate ties to the oil industry. "

2) Slate actually printed my letter at the time pointing out that Mr Cave was full of shit -- and ignorant of recent discoveries of huge deposits in the Caspian. But who the fuck reads letters to editor?

3) So I went to Alexander Cockburn. Sourcewatch's section on Kazakhstan oil , links to my 2002 Counterpunch article "Questions Barbara Walters Didn't ask George Bush". It also has a nice historical overview on CHeney's involvement in this region. As well as noting that the Texan firm "Baker Hughes" recently paid $44 Million to settle some past foreign bribery violations in this region. Hefty fine for a mirage. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kazakhstan's_oil_industry

4) So what ever happen to Damien Cave? He's now a reporter for the New York Times, of course.

Posted by Don Williams | August 1, 2008 1:08 PM

I have to admit, I'm quite frankly getting confused. Slate is one of the better general news and culture sites on the web, and appears to have a pretty diverse roster of viewpoints. Now, I understand Matt was reacting to LibertyWire calling itself a "right-of-center version of Slate", but honestly - does every publication out there have to have a slant? On any given week, Slate's current articles can range from libertarian to culturally conservative (ever read Dear Prudence?) to downright lefty. And yes, Mickey Kaus gets overcounted because he became a lightening rod, but it doesn't mean he's the whole magazine.

To be honest, this whole line of conversation is starting to feel kind of reactionary. I know we live in the era of Fox News, and I know Matt's leaving to go to a organization that doesn't aim for balance in the views presented, but... there are a lot of ideas out there. Who cares where they come from, if they're well-written and open for debate?

Posted by Emily | August 1, 2008 1:12 PM

I have to admit, I'm quite frankly getting confused. Slate is one of the better general news and culture sites on the web, and appears to have a pretty diverse roster of viewpoints. Now, I understand Matt was reacting to LibertyWire calling itself a "right-of-center version of Slate", but honestly - does every publication out there have to have a slant? On any given week, Slate's current articles can range from libertarian to culturally conservative (ever read Dear Prudence?) to downright lefty. And yes, Mickey Kaus gets overcounted because he became a lightening rod, but it doesn't mean he's the whole magazine.

To be honest, this whole line of conversation is starting to feel kind of reactionary. I know we live in the era of Fox News, and I know Matt's leaving to go to a organization that doesn't aim for balance in the views presented, but... there are a lot of ideas out there. Who cares where they come from, if they're well-written and open for debate?

Posted by Emily | August 1, 2008 1:18 PM

Emily,

How confused can you really be? I would have no problems with a multitude of conservative voices in the media if those voices were actually called to task for dishonesty. But they're simply not. In an ideal world, the difference between a center-left and center-right magazine would not be important. But in our world, there is a strong correlation between being further to the right and being more likely to write little more than propaganda pieces.

Plus, there is an important debate as to what constitutes 'the center'. We can't allow writers who do nothing but criticize left-of-center views from the right be defined as moderates, much less 'left-of-center'. That's ridiculous. And it's a serious problem in the way current political debates are framed in the mainstream media. The 'center' as understood by the MSM is currently substantially to the right of the country (much less the rest of the developed world).

Posted by mpowell | August 1, 2008 1:31 PM

I'm with Lev. Lithwick and Kaplan are the only reasons I ever look at Slate anymore. If they ever leave I'll be gone for good. The rest of it is either pompous (Saletan), irritating (most of them), or downright revolting (Hitchens and Kaus). By the way, Lawyers Guns and Money is the go-to site for Kaus and Saletan haters.

Posted by beckya57 | August 1, 2008 1:37 PM

Re Emily's comment "there are a lot of ideas out there. Who cares where they come from, if they're well-written and open for debate? "
-------------
The problem with that approach is that you end up with Fox, Bill O"Reilly, Rush Limbaugh misleading the voters in a major way --and defending their cons as "providing balance". Diversity is one thing --tolerance for deceit, deliberation confusion, and coverups is something else.

The voters are supposed to run this country -- based on truthful information. Does anyone know of ANY functional organization -- the military, corporations,etc -- that could survive if its leadership received information according the paradigm that guides the US News Media?

Honest disagreement is one thing -- but there needs to be a mechanism whic weeds out the bullshit and punishes the bullshitters. We don't have that in the US -- and as a result we have some of the most ignorant fucking citizens on the planet. Because stupidity is deliberately poured into their brains by the News Media.

There also needs to be a mechanism that ensures ALL the major facts are presented --because Fox, in my opinion, misleads as much by what it covers up and hides as by what it actually says.

Posted by Don Williams | August 1, 2008 1:37 PM

Slate is liberal the same way that say, The Nation is pro-American. On one hand all of it's authors are members of a particular cultural group (America/metropolitan liberalism) and share the assumptions and methodologies of that group. However, they criticize that group and it's leading arguments more often than not.

Posted by Shock Mouse | August 1, 2008 1:38 PM

As an example of how Slate was in the tank for Bush/Cheney after Sept l1, See Damien Cave's "Stuck in the Gulf"

Um, Don, that's Salon, not Slate.

Posted by Al | August 1, 2008 1:39 PM

Do not forget that half the results on a Google search for "capriphilia" bear the name of Mickey Kaus.

Posted by rea | August 1, 2008 1:44 PM

Also, if Al says Slate is moderate, that pretty much proves it's conservative.

I said no such thing. I merely challenged Matthew's statement that a publication that has articles by heterodox liberals challenging liberal conventional wisdom is necessarily conservative.

Slate is clearly liberal. And my perspective is clearly unbiased and neutral, unlike all those people who think Slate is center right (those people are merely showing how far to the left they are).

Posted by Al | August 1, 2008 1:49 PM

I'm with whoever above said that Slate is politically a basically center-left but contrarian site, and that the combination can be anti-center-left, and certainly anti-left. But it's more of the cutesy, who-would-have-thought-someone-could-make-THIS-argument variety, not the hard core conservative THIS IS THE TRUTH variety. Whether that's better, worse, or neither I'm not sure.

In any case, I find Lithwick, Kaplan, and Dickerson generally worth reading. And some of the cultural stuff is great (Dana Stephens' film reviews in particular). But maybe if I actually read Kaus, Hitchens, and Saletlan, I'd agree more with Matt.

Posted by Mr Saturday Pants | August 1, 2008 1:51 PM

I've always felt that Slate was center right publication but one that didn't realize it was center right.

Well, it's always been the TNR to Salon's Nation. It had Krugman defending neoliberalism during the era of anti-globalisation protest.

There is a place in the American media for contrarian takes from the left towards conventional domestic liberalism. It's called 'Democracy Now'. Which is pretty fucking pitiful. Slate is happiest when it's scolding liberals for not treating abortion as sufficiently icky or bullshit wars as sufficiently justified.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 1, 2008 1:52 PM

I'm not sure if Al is suffering from some sock puppetry or just humorously paroding himself.

Posted by mpowell | August 1, 2008 1:53 PM

I think of Slate as center-right. When I think of it.

Posted by eve | August 1, 2008 1:55 PM

I also consider Slate to be leaning to the right. The same is true of its Podcast - political gabfest. They act like they are sort of opinionated but neutral but, when I listen to it, I don't detect any sympathy for the left or progressive causes (or civil liberties!) but I do hear sympathy for conservatives and their causes at least on occasion.

Mickey Kaus may be some sort of disaffected Democrat but he comes across as a sort of acid Maureen Dowd who hates all politicians but who has special hatred and cuttingly cruel things to say about Democrats in particular.

Posted by Susan | August 1, 2008 2:04 PM

Emily,

The problem isn't so much that Slate is center right - the problem is that it is regarded as center left, despite being (if anything) center right, and that the same pattern is repeated regarding other media institutions.

The reasons for this are two fold. One, the "establishment" in the United States is (compared to the electorate) center right in terms of economics* and foriegn policy**, and center left on social issues, and the media reflects this fact. Two, the right has been extraordinarily successful in "gaming the refs" vis a vis the media over the past 40 years.

At some level I don't even begrudge them that; movement conservatism has been guilty of many horrible crimes (yes, crimes, I mean that literally), but trying to influence the media narrative is just one thing all political movements do.

But they need to be called on it. Constantly. And if we accept that Slate, for god's sake, represents the center left - well, that's pretty much conceding the game right there.

*center right in the sense that movement conservatism tries to define the "right." Clearly if you are a paleo, you aren't going to be very happy with the establishment consensus on economic issues. But nor is the left. The establishment is moderately fiscally conservative (again, compared tot he electorate), pro-free trade and pro-immigration. Whatever one thinks of those viewpoints, they are, taken as a whole, in the current political spectrum, center right.

**anyone who fails to recognize this is delusional or lying, and, frankly, not someone with whom it makes sense to even hold a dialog.

Posted by LarryM | August 1, 2008 2:10 PM

humorously paroding himself

I assume you're referring to the "clearly unbiased and neutral" crack...

Posted by Al | August 1, 2008 2:13 PM

Thinking Slate is left-leaning is a good test for whether you have any idea what actual liberal (let alone left-of-liberal) thinking is. Like all the other mainstream outlets, they are to the right on economics and foreign policy, on the indulgent libertarian side on lifestyle matters (although they won't go so far as to, for example, take on the drug war...that would be RADICAL or something!).

As for being contrarian...please. They are exactly as contrarian as might be amusing at a Beltway cocktail party, but never genuinely take on a mainstream media consensus. Where are the "contrarian" articles on the economics problems with free trade? With copyright and patent law? Where are the "contrarian" foreign policy articles on Iran?

There really are smart, contrarian, left-leaning outlets out there, but Slate most definitely is not one of them. They are the gossip clubhouse for the Washington Post editorial page.

Posted by MQ | August 1, 2008 2:22 PM

MQ,

Kaplan on McCain:
7/23/08

http://www.slate.com/id/2195865/

Why are some politically correct anti-war people annoyingly wrong all the time not just some of the time? Were they beat up as kids on a regular basis or something? Seriously have you even read Slate ever?

Maybe Kaplan's article is why the rightwingers were referring to Slate as leftwing, which started this discussion.

Posted by Peter K. | August 1, 2008 2:40 PM

LarryM:

You state: "The problem isn't so much that Slate is center right - the problem is that it is regarded as center left, despite being (if anything) center right, and that the same pattern is repeated regarding other media institutions."

This raises such an interesting question with regards to the left-right spectrum. You state with certainty what constitutes "right" and "left", which I think might give these labels more power than they actually possess. While it is possible to classify many policy positions as belonging to a particular school of liberalism or conservatism, it is challenging at best to draw a line down the middle.

The reason I would never consider Slate to be a center-right publication is that I don't know a single person who would self-identify as a Republican or conservative who would identify that way. Whereas most people on the left I know read Slate, even if they often disagree with it or consider it to their own right.

I would find it strange to label Slate "right" when it is not read or embraced by the political right. Even stranger when it is most read and debated (even if not embraced) by the left.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that while it is possible that Slate is right of center on foreign policy, that's only one aspect of Slate's coverage, and I would argue strongly that it's coverage of the U.S. (particularly legal coverage, see Lithwick), culture, and gender issues is absolutely left of center. Slate runs a regular column on environmentalism (the Green Lantern), which is premised on the assumption that readers agree that the environment should be protected. Additionally, Slate has a section dedicated to gender issues (XX), and frequently runs stories that assume readers at least lean in the direction of feminism. I'd also point out that any sustained reading of Dana Stevens (film and culture) and Troy Patterson (television) indicates that Slate's culture columns are liberal-leaning.

I can understand if you're most concerned about the foreign policy coverage. But viewed more broadly, it's clear that Slate is a liberal-leaning publication read primarily by a liberal audience. In which case, it isn't dangerous or misleading to label it left-of-center.

Posted by Emily | August 1, 2008 3:18 PM

"Enough people in the business have gotten in touch with me in a hurry to dispute the idea that Slate is a center-right publication"

Matt, would "people in the business" refer to people who are already ensconced in the political-media complex, and thus in theory knowledgeable/impressive, and in practice, even more fucking annoying to discuss politics with, because it's through their own fucked-up prisms of "what the American people think"? Seriously, if you're getting feedback from people who think David Brooks and David Broder have fingers on the pulse of the public, instead of in their ears, you really don't owe them a lot of analytical deference.

Seriously, any outlet that runs Kaus, Saletan, Hitchens, and John Dickerson is one that's forfeited any reasonable identification with the "left" -- although they've got great company in the centrist-capitulationist wing of the party, so I suppose *that* confuses things a bit.

Posted by Chris | August 1, 2008 3:19 PM

I think the first poster has it largely correct.

Slate's web material is obnoxious because it appears to be almost knee-jerk contrarian, as if Slate's entire strategy is to lure people to their site with ridiculous claims instead of more nuanced analysis.

If 90% of people believe that Bush is an idiot, then Slate will run a piece called "Bush a Genius?". If the sky is blue, then Slate will run a piece called: "Our red, red sky". In this way, their web material is not unlike local television, in which a blond news-actor breathlessly ask us: "Will your groin explode? News at 11". The only difference is that Slate filters its intellectually alarmist material through the snide irony of Ivy League snootiness. In reality, Slate has become nothing more than an elaborate Maureen Dowd column.

I keep mentioning "web material", because I think their Political and Cultural Podcasts are quite good. They are easily some of my favorite podcasts, and I listen to a lot of them.

When I hear a podcast, however, I think, "Wow, I should check out Slate this week," and then when I check out Slate, I largely find a whole lot of crappity crap crap.

Posted by Joe | August 1, 2008 3:20 PM

I think the first poster has it largely correct.

Slate's web material is obnoxious because it appears to be almost knee-jerk contrarian, as if Slate's entire strategy is to lure people to their site with ridiculous claims instead of more nuanced analysis.

If 90% of people believe that Bush is an idiot, then Slate will run a piece called "Bush a Genius?". If the sky is blue, then Slate will run a piece called: "Our red, red sky". In this way, their web material is not unlike local television, in which a blond news-actor breathlessly ask us: "Will your groin explode? News at 11". The only difference is that Slate filters its intellectually alarmist material through the snide irony of Ivy League snootiness. In reality, Slate has become nothing more than an elaborate Maureen Dowd column.

I keep mentioning "web material", because I think their Political and Cultural Podcasts are quite good. They are easily some of my favorite podcasts, and I listen to a lot of them.

When I hear a podcast, however, I think, "Wow, I should check out Slate this week," and then when I check out Slate, I largely find a whole lot of crappity crap crap.

Posted by Joe | August 1, 2008 3:24 PM

I am not sure if Slate is center-left, center, or center-right, but I am sure that "The Mickey Kaus Phenomenon" is the worst name I have ever heard for a rock band.

Posted by TKD | August 1, 2008 3:38 PM

"We can't allow writers who do nothing but criticize left-of-center views from the right be defined as moderates, much less 'left-of-center'. That's ridiculous"

This point is apparently not obvious to most of the media. Matt, my man, can you do like 100 posts on this?

Posted by mickslam | August 1, 2008 3:41 PM

Emily,

I thought you might be onto something in your first sentence (more on that anon), but you then you take it in an unfortunate (and inaccurate) direction.

I think that your latest post contains a number of assertions with which I would disagree (for one thing, I think it makes no sense at all to look to Slate's readership, rather than tits content, to determine ideological bent. That's even worse than the more common error of looking at the ideological identification of the newsreaders or beat reporters who don't determine editorial content). But to the extent that you have are partly correct with regard to some of your assertions, you have identified the problem, rather than denied its existence. That is, for the reasons that I have identified (gaming the refs and a center right establishment), on most issues (again, there are exceptions; social issues, and probably the environment to a limited extent) the "center of gravity" of the current media is center right. So that unless a "liberal" wants to limit himself to avowedly partisan sources, he or she pretty much can't help but patronize center right media sources. OTOH, conservatives sometimes tend to steer clear of some of those same sources because of the social liberalism.

There is another dynamic here. 40 years ago, the center of gravity of the media was, overall probably center left (though even there not so much on foriegn affairs). What happened is that, in that atmosphere, conservatives (understandably) began looking elsewhere, and building alternative media institutions, whereas liberals were content to continue to use mainstream media resources. That pattern is starting to break down (especially on the internet), but still holds to a large degree, and, to the extent that your demographic guesses are correct (and I suspect that they are only partially so), they are explained more by history and habit than by State's ideological orientation.

Finally, it's pretty significant that, on the one hand, people in this thread have presented dozens of very specific examples of a rightward bent on Slate; you are the only person who has presented some specific examples going the other way ... and I think you have to honestly concede that you haven't found as many examples of leftward tilt as other people have found of rightward tilt.

Unless you think Mickey Kaus is a centrist - and if so you are hopeless and I've just wasted 15 minutes writing this.

Finally, getting back to your first sentence - yes, on some issues the whole left/right dichotomy breaks down (ironically the war is one of them - the sensible 5% of the population who are non-interventionist come from the left, right, and the libertarians, wherever they fit), but if one excludes the fringes - and on foriegn policy I proudly admit to being on the fringe - my breakdown above holds very true I think. Slate, like the MST as a whole, like the establishment, is center left on social issues, and center right on everything else.

Posted by LarryM | August 1, 2008 5:18 PM

This is absurd. Mickey Kaus is a very small, and almost completely unpromoted, part of Slate. John Dickerson is just a classic campaign reporter. Just go down the line of the columnists:

Legal affairs: Lithwick (liberal), Bazelon (liberal)

Foreign policy/military: Kaplan (center-left)

Business: Dan Gross (mainstream Democrat)

Culture: Stevens, Patterson, O'Rourke, Metcalf (all liberals)

Copyright/patent issues: Tim Wu (liberal)

Arab coverage: Aslan (left)

So who do you put against that? Saletan and Hitchens? Fine -- if you think that makes Slate center-right it only shows how your biases are blinding you.

Posted by K. Williams | August 1, 2008 5:30 PM

This is absurd. Mickey Kaus is a very small, and almost completely unpromoted, part of Slate. John Dickerson is just a classic campaign reporter. Just go down the line of the columnists:

Legal affairs: Lithwick (liberal), Bazelon (liberal)

Foreign policy/military: Kaplan (center-left)

Business: Dan Gross (mainstream Democrat)

Culture: Stevens, Patterson, O'Rourke, Metcalf (all liberals)

Copyright/patent issues: Tim Wu (liberal)

Arab coverage: Aslan (left)

So who do you put against that? Saletan and Hitchens? Fine -- if you think that makes Slate center-right it only shows how your biases are blinding you.

Posted by K. Williams | August 1, 2008 5:36 PM

The key to understanding Mickey Kaus is that he's a native Angeleno, which gives him a several decade headstart in seeing the direction the whole country is moving.

Mickey grew up in a Southern California that was much more egalitarian, and has seen it move over the years toward far greater social and economic stratification. He liked the old middle class Los Angeles more than the new Buenos Aires-style Los Angeles.

This puts him at odds with the NYC-DC-Boston-dominated pundit caste, who can't understand what all the hoopla over illegal immigration is about. As far as the East Coast axis of punditry can tell from their limited experience with illegal immigration, it just provides them with cheap, submissive servants who slowly push out of the city the scary African-Americans. So, what's not to like?

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 1, 2008 6:10 PM

Hey guys, guess what? Steve Sailer thinks that a totally unrelated phenomenon is the product of race! How crazy!

Posted by Freddie | August 1, 2008 6:53 PM

What would it mean to have rightwing or leftwing culture coverage?

Posted by M | August 1, 2008 8:03 PM

But Steve, I was always under the impression that intra-minority squabbling was a feature for you, not a glitch. I've never understood about what you want - rather than what you dislike. A return to some imaginary untroubled white supremacist past where the darkies stay in their place? Or just a forum to get your jollies off hitting golfballs into the ghetto from a high rise balcony and not caring where they land? Either way it is a decidedly unattractive worldview, and for your psychic health I suggest you take a look over the edge of the rut you are digging yourself into.

Posted by vivisfugue | August 1, 2008 8:09 PM

I once criticized Kaus in an email and he wrote me back to say I was a loser and that he wasn't because he had a professional writing job, was on TV, and had a great wife. LOL - I'm not making this up.

Posted by sunnyd | August 1, 2008 8:16 PM

Why are some politically correct anti-war people annoyingly wrong all the time not just some of the time?

Like on the Iraq war, and Bush's economic policies, and the housing bubble? Ummmm...no, wait!

Seriously have you even read Slate ever?

I suspect the problem is that you are too clueless about politics in the broader sense to understand the definitions of "left" and "right". A publication like Slate is smack in the middle of the American center, which by world standards puts it somewhat to the right. Just like other establishment outlets, it respects the pieties of that center (people who find Slate genuinely "contrarian" in any deep sense just show they haven't ever read intelligent writers who are far to the left *or* far to the right).

Since Slate is pretty much right down the line with e.g. the WashPo editorial page, it has some writers who root for Democrats and others who root for Republicans. Contrary to the right-wingers who love echo chambers, this does not make it "left-leaning". It's so centrist it doesn't even have the ideological span of the NY Times op-ed section -- not a single econ writer as left as Krugman or a single political writer as right-wing as Kristol.

Posted by MQ | August 1, 2008 9:25 PM

Not being a regular here, I suppose I should keep my mouth shut, but I am compelled to make a few observations:

Don: Anyone who thinks the Nation was carrying water for Bush after 9/11 is just plain crazy. I was reading it then, and aside from Hitchens there was virtually no support for any aspect of the WoT.

Speaking of Hitchens, I think its a mistake to consider him right-wing. A big-time war supporter yes, but AFAIK, he hasn't thrown over his other lefty ideals. OTOH, 90% of his contribution to Slate is war stuff (.i.e, stuff right-wingers would like), so maybe putting him on the right column there is correct.

Left != Liberal. There are times I think that rather than liberal simply being "center-left", that there is in fact a discontinuity, with "the Left" and the Paleos inhabiting areas above the traditional continuum, with some overlapping values on the left and right sides, but not actually touching. YMMV.

World political spectrum vs. US spectrum. This can get confusing. While it is true that US liberals would be conservatives in much of Europe, I would wager most people make their judgments based on the local spectrum (the argument of whether that is correct or not I leave for another day). By *that* measure, and based on the sheer volume of Bush and Republican-bashing alone, it qualifies as liberal.

I think the many-times noted now contrarian aspect has much merit.

Posted by Jammer | August 1, 2008 10:35 PM

Poor Emily -- she had the audacity of liking something instead of a knee-jerk criticism. I'd agree with Emily in that Slate is a site written for someone with higher than an 8th grade education and presents well written pieces which, whether I agree with them or not, present better arguments then a Dobbs xenophobia or Limbaugh anti-intellectualism.

So bloggers, what is the example of a center news site? Since right-of-center is right and center is right, who do you suggest represents the "center". Reading the commentary, I can't help but reaffirm the observation that people getting their news from blogs lean heavily from one spectrum making their arguments unpalatable for the "center". . . however you define it to be.

Posted by Bibby | August 1, 2008 11:34 PM

who do you suggest represents the "center".

Well, it depends how subject you are to the idea that a degree of erudition and international interest can be characterised as inherently 'left' in US media. Christian Science Monitor is down-the-line, if that's your ticket.

But the 'center' is a false normative state. There is an asymmetrical relationship between how media defines the 'center' and how people's views resolve themselves. The constituency of what could easily be defined as 'reactionary populists' is far larger than the centrists postulated by certain media sources.

This isn't even restricted to American politics. Ideological centrism rarely has a significant political constituency, and where it does, it's usually defined oppositionally.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 2, 2008 4:54 AM

The key to understanding Mickey Kaus is that he's a native Angeleno, which gives him a several decade headstart in seeing the direction the whole country is moving.

OK, so birth is destiny even in terms of which American city one grew up in? I'm a white Angeleno who moved to L.A. when I was one year old, in 1975, and I favor much more open borders and down have any problem with the growing political power of Latinos in California.

I don't know what part of town Kaus grew up in; I was in Long Beach, pretty middle-class but in a more working-class neighborhood, very mixed ethnically.

I guess I'm not so surprised about Kaus. I assume he grew up on the Westside or in the Valley; a lot of Zev Yaroslavsky's constituency is Democratic on a national scale but is quite conservative on local issues (e.g., the brown man and planning/NIMBY issues).

Posted by Adam Villani | August 2, 2008 5:00 AM

Go back and look at the slate archives for the 2004 Presidential election. It basically gives the answer. Many of the writers openly voted for Bush and the ones that voted for Kerry all felt the need to qualify their support.

It is most certainly center-right.

Posted by jeff | August 2, 2008 11:26 AM

"Go back and look at the slate archives for the 2004 Presidential election. It basically gives the answer. Many of the writers openly voted for Bush and the ones that voted for Kerry all felt the need to qualify their support."

I guess you thought we wouldn't look?

Kevin Arnovitz, Fray Editor: Kerry
Paul Berman, Contributor: Kerry
Henry Blodget, Contributor: Kerry
Paul Boutin, Technology Writer: Kerry
Phillip Carter, Military and Legal Affairs Writer: Kerry
Bryan Curtis, Deputy Culture Editor: Kerry
Sara Dickerman, Food Writer: Kerry
Daniel Drezner, Political Scientist and Contributor: Kerry
Jonathan Epstein, Software Development Engineer/Program Manager: Kerry
Gretchen Evanson, Office Manager: Kerry
Mia Fineman, Curator and Art Writer: Kerry
Cris Fritz, Software Development Engineer: Kerry
Richard Ford, Law Professor and Contributor: Kerry
David Greenberg, Contributor: Kerry
Christopher Hitchens, Contributor: No Choice*
Jim Holt, Contributor: Kerry

Let me cite one relatively marginal reason: Kerry opposes the death penalty. In doing so, he passes a test of rationality and moral decency that every other Republican and Democratic presidential candidate has failed for at least the last three elections.
Margo Howard, Advice Columnist: Kerry
Fred Kaplan, Contributor: Kerry
Jon Katz, Contributor: Kerry
Mickey Kaus, Contributor: Kerry
David Bradley Kenner, Intern: Bush
Kathleen Kincaid, Design Director/Lead Program Manager: Kerry
Laura Kipnis, Contributor: Kerry
Steven Landsburg, Economic Writer: Bush
Rachael Larimore, Copy Editor: Bush
Josh Levin, Assistant Editor: Kerry
Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor: Neither

I won't be voting. I am a Canadian citizen. Which may explain, to some extent, why I am a Kerry supporter.
Scott Moore, General Manager of the MSN News and Information Division: Kerry
Robert Neubecker, Illustrator: Kerry
Timothy Noah, Senior Writer: Kerry
Meghan O'Rourke, Culture Editor: Kerry
Josh Payton, Interactive Designer: David Cobb
Jill Hunter Pellettieri, Assistant Editor: Kerry
David Plotz, Deputy Editor: Kerry
Charlie Powell, Illustrator: Kerry
William Saletan, Chief Political Correspondent: Kerry
Jack Shafer, Editor at Large: Michael Badnarik
Gerald Shargel, Contributor: Kerry
Lee Smith, Contributor: Bush
Laurie Snyder, Copy Chief: Kerry
Mark Alan Stamaty, Illustrator: Kerry
Mike Steinberger, Wine Writer: Kerry
Dana Stevens, Television Writer: Kerry

Seth Stevenson, Contributor: Kerry
Chris Suellentrop, Deputy Washington Bureau Chief: Kerry
Maureen Sullivan, Copy Editor: Kerry
June Thomas, West Coast Editor: Kerry
Louisa Herron Thomas, Intern: Kerry
Julia Turner, Assistant Editor: Kerry
Garry Trudeau, Contributor: Kerry
Eric Umansky, Contributor: Kerry
Jacob Weisberg, Editor: Kerry
Owen West, War Stories Contributor: Bush
Robert Wright, Contributor: Kerry

So when you say "Many of the writers openly voted for Bush and the ones that voted for Kerry all felt the need to qualify their support." you mean 4 out of 55.

If 5 out of 55 were voting for Kerry when 50% of America voted for Bush, you probably aren't talking about a "center-right" publication.

Posted by Sebastian | August 4, 2008 12:36 PM

1) "Mickey Kaus, Contributor: Kerry"
J*s*s f*cking H Chr*st- at this point that list isn't worth jack sh*t.

2) Matt: "I've noticed that a lot of people in the field of journalism have a tendency to judge the political proclivities of a publication by the subjective mental states of the staff. The correct way, however, is to look at what's on the pages."

Did you even notice that? The major gripe of liberals with Slate is that they're a pack of liars and BS-ers, whose 'contrarianism' happens to be far more pleasing to the right than to the left.

3) Matt: "Similarly, if in order to be "interesting" and "provocative" your publication contains some articles in which heterodox liberals challenge liberal conventional wisdom and other articles in which conservatives challenge liberal conventional wisdom, then your publication is mostly publishing conservative content."

The original basis of this post was to look at the content, and not be deceived by the claimed alignments of the staff.

Posted by Barry | August 4, 2008 7:37 PM

You people are insane. Does every publication have to be "liberal" or "conservative"? Slate doesn't even publish staff editorials. The political viewpoints of their contributors are all over the place, from a Trotskyite-neocon to a few traditional liberals. I don't think they have anyone you'd call a plain-vanilla conservative. Their top editors have been liberal: Kinsey, Weisberg, whoever the new guy is.

But back to my point: who gives a shit? They're obviously not filling any ideological quotas. They publish articles that their editors find interesting. They're not The Nation or the Weekly Standard or the Economist where there's a "party line" that the editors are dictating.

If everything must be a "left" or "center-right" publication or whatever, you need to take a break from politics for a minute. And maybe argue about where to place Cat Fancy on the left-right spectrum.

It's kind of weird to still be here arguing now that Matthew is gone. I feel like I'm at a party at 5 a.m. and the host already got up and left for work.

Posted by too many steves | August 4, 2008 8:27 PM

Any publication that has Lord Saletan repeatedly concern trolling the abortion issue and trying to water down the pro-choice position every chance he gets is a publication that's at least center-right.

Posted by scottreads | August 8, 2008 9:02 AM

I agree with you exactly. If the staff is to the right, but they report a wide range of news in a fair manner, that is a good paper. I'm publishing a new paper and I will include stories from all sides. If I do this right, I suppose everyone will be mad at me lol.

Posted by tricia | August 12, 2008 8:11 AM

I agree with you exactly. If the staff is to the right, but they report a wide range of news in a fair manner, that is a good paper. I'm publishing a new paper and I will include stories from all sides. If I do this right, I suppose everyone will be mad at me lol.

Posted by tricia | August 12, 2008 8:12 AM