Journalism, Campaign Hackery. What's the Difference?


Funny Columbia Journalism Review interview with the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, about his time on the payroll of GOP presidential candidate John McCain:

KK: So now you're back at The Weekly Standard. Can we expect to see something from you with the inside scoop on the final days of the McCain campaign?

MG: I don't think there's an appetite for it. I think the truth will out at some point. If the media was remotely competent, it would have reported that story by now. It's a great process story, which is what the media loved most.

KK: Now that you're back in journalism, is there a conflict of interest in covering anything relating to the McCains and the campaign?

MG: We have an agenda at The Weekly Standard. It's overt. McCain was fairly well in line with that agenda, out of all the candidates. I think it's ridiculous when you see the stuff on the other side. Jay Carney is going to be the communications director for the vice president. I mean, Time is not supposed to be an ideological magazine. I don't have a problem with that, either, but when people got bent out of shape with me going over there—this wasn't a major shift for me. This was the same thing as before.

I've written plenty on the McCain/Weekly Standard connection over the years; begin here.

NEXT: Obama's Fuel Economy Follies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Matt, I really dig your journalism coverage. Always makes me feel a little bit like I’m sneakily peeking at an adulterer through the blinds…

  2. I agree with the headline…

  3. This cat has been out of the bag for a long time now. Bernie Goldberg’s Bias was published in 2002, after all. The only interesting thing is how many so-called “journalists” still deny it.

  4. Hackery, shmackery. Where’s my check?

    “I’m gonna get me some of that candyfied methamphetamine and a fourteen year old prostitot.”

  5. Stop calling pundits and opiners journalist. Once that happens, you’ll see news isn’t really isn’t that biased. Nothing but boring facts that can fit in a 30 minute slot.

    What’s biased about gunman kills 7 at Bumfuck Mall?

  6. Don’t blame me for 2 isn’t, my proof reader works at Fox News. He came over from the NY Times.

  7. It’s only a hack if I disagree with the stated position.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.