Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Inside blogging: evolution of the CJR story

Yesterday I wrote an entry about Victor Navasky running the show at CJR while not appearing on its masthead. This is the story of how that story happened.

On Monday, May 30, I received a tip that big-name left-wing editor Victor Navasky is running things at CJR, and that some people find that problematic, especially since Navasky does not appear on the masthead.

On Tuesday, May 31, I called Navasky at his office at The Nation, where Navasky is publisher and editorial director, to confirm the story. Navasky was gracious in answering my questions. (He also plugged his new book.)

I then called CJR executive editor Michael Hoyt for comment. After asking me if I had talked to Navasky, Hoyt, too, graciously answered my questions.

Having completed the two key interviews, I then wrote the story and posted it on my blog at 4:57 pm ET Tuesday.

I followed that up by a phone call to media blogger Jim Romenesko. Romenesko was intrigued by the story but somewhat skeptical. I sent him a link. I also sent Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds a link. As of the next morning (that is today, Wednesday, June 1), neither Romenesko nor Reynolds had published a link.

I next got in touch with Power Line's Paul Mirengoff (to whom I had been introduced at a dinner reception a couple of weeks earlier). Mirengoff then posted a link and brief discussion on Power Line; as one might expect, Mirengoff's link started sending considerable traffic to this blog. The Power Line link was stamped 8:56 a.m., but I suspect that is Central Time, which equates to 9:56 a.m. ET.

Then at 12:15 ET (or 9:15 a.m. PT, as stamped on his blog), Hugh Hewitt posted a link, citing Power Line. Hewitt expressed skepticism:
Powerline relays a report from David M that Columbia Journalism Review is significantly influenced by big name lefty Victor Navasky, publisher and part owner of The Nation. This strikes me as very improbable. I will be interested to see what CJR's blog, CJR Daily, says about the story throughout the day. Would silence at the blog --lilke silence at the Pentagon when pressed by Newsweek a few weeks ago-- be appropriately understood as a nod towards the accuracy of David M's reporting?
(Note to Hugh Hewitt: If you find it improbable, call CJR and ask. That's what I did.)

Next, at 12:30 p.m. ET, Editor & Publisher posted an article entitled "Victor Navasky Now Playing Key Role at 'CJR'" which cited this blog, though not with a link. Graham Webster reported the story for E&P and apparently interviewed the same two people I had interviewed, Hoyt and Navasky.

At 12:54 p.m. ET, Poynter's Romenesko linked to the E&P story while giving this blog credit:
Navasky steps in at CJR
Lemann asked him to take a role.
(First reported here.)
(E&P | David M)

Related posts on this site: