After six weeks of breathless anticipation, readers hungry for the “re-imagination” of journalism were finally treated to the first morsel of Ezra Klein’s “Project X” when Matthew Yglesias dropped his first Vox Media-bylined knowledge bomb:
As longtime admirers of Ezra Klein and his scrappy gang of Juicebox wunderkinds, we are dismayed to learn that “Project X,” Klein’s broad-based multiplatform transformative new media venture, does not appear to value diversity in the newsroom.
Washington Post media watchdog Erik Wemple reported Wednesday that Richard Prince, a prominent advocate for “Diversifying the Face of American Journalism,” has raised questions about the racial diversity at Project X.
To his credit, Klein’s response should be held as the gold standard of comebacks/apologies for liberals caught in an act of homogeny.
The owner, publisher, and editor-in-chief of the New Republic issued a statement this week pledging to rectify the lack of sexual-identity diversity among its editorial contributors.
Chris Hughes, the inventor of Facebook’s “poke” button who bought the nearly a century old liberal magazine in 2012, vowed to bridge the publication’s gender gap and bring aboard a more sexually diverse bench of writers to the magazine’s literary pages.
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp’s (R., Mich.) released a very serious tax reform proposal on Thursday. So why are two THE POLITICO reporters laughing their heads off?
THE POLITICO’s Jake Sherman and Manu Raju both agreed that it would hilarious if Camp was exiled to communist China. Maybe this is why the American people have lost faith in the Washington establishment, and why the Washington establishment has lost faith in THE POLITICO.
The antics are just the latest salvo in the mainstream media’s war on prominent Republicans. Last week, BuzzFeed reporter McKay Coppins was exposed as a womanizing bison fiend whose loutish behavior during an “interview” with2016 frontrunner Donald Trump prompting a scathing response from the real estate magnate.
Austerity. The media keeps using that word. We do not think it means what they think it means. Or rather, the word appears to have lost all meaning; it means whatever they want it to mean.
Last week, the Washington Post reported that President Obama’s budget request for 2015 “will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency.” Instead, he will focus on “pumping new cash into [programs supported by liberals],” while abandoning his symbolic nod toward reforming the entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the country.
In other news, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday announced the Obama administration’s plans to slash the Army to its smallest size since 1940, a famously good year for the economic and geopolitical affairs. The move is perfectly in keeping with the administration’s sophisticated foreign policy strategy of thinking about what George W. Bush would do, and then doing the opposite of that. According to the New York Times, the proposal “takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity.”