Talk:National Journal

Untitled

I attempted (successfully) to verify the claim about three National Magazine Awards, but the website for the awards (http://www.magazine.org/Editorial/National_Magazine_Awards/Searchable_Database/index.cfm#results) does not offer a way to directly link to the results (you can search on National Journal to at least verify the three awards, though). So I'm not sure how to add the cite that this article needs.

The authors are not Conservatives. National Journal is a Non Partisan Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.245.113 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-partisan or not?

KS - Nov 2013 - I live in DC and attend some of the Atlantic's monthly topical events. They are typically focused on issues and appear to strive to encourage intellectual discourse. To me this means they cannot be considered "far right" in our world. The far right in America decries rational discourse and would rather not acknowledge truths which contrast with the "conservative" position. National Journal cannot be considered anything more than "center right" in my opinion. While we are discussing, perhaps we might consider why all issues must be viewed through the distorted prism of conservative vs. liberal anyway. These are not the only two characteristics that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.62.32 (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any factual information regarding the partisanship or non-partisanship of the National Journal? My understanding is that the editorial staff hold a variety of political opinion across the generic left-right spectrum. --Davidp (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They're a far-right publication, end of story. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The National Review would rightly be considered a conservative publication. But the National Journal is really highly regarded as non-partisan. Same with The Hotline. If you in fact meant the National Journal I'd be pretty curious what you'd cite as evidence of "far-right", especially compared to National Review, Weekly Standard, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Their rather suspicious ratings of the "most liberal" members of Congress sure points in that direction. Apparently the best way to get a high liberal rating on their list isn't to vote in a partical way, but to be a Democratic candidate for President. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but one list is not a particularly good measure of an entire publication. It might be appropriate to add a section to the article about 1) the prominence of this list 2) the concerns with its methodology. This is not sufficient evidence for the insinuation that the entire publication is "far-right" certainly not considering the vast amount of genuinely conservative media. --JayHenry (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to discuss with someone who tosses a "end of story" without explaining his point? Pffff. Scram.

The fact that they are published by the Atlantic Media Company makes me seriously doubt that it is a "far-right" publication. Then, that they are represented on Washington Week adds to my perception. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an important question. But perhaps more so is the question of "the generic left-right spectrum." Indeed that question is why I landed here. Conservative, liberal, or moderate? True, that may be difficult since Europe thinks the US is super conservative, even the Dems. And the USA's recent lurch to the right, as Reagan Republican historian/economist Bruce Bartlett recently said; "It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted." Some even argue that Reagan was too Liberal For Today's GOP.
--68.127.81.146 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

No matter where they fall on the spectrum they are definitely biased against Ron Paul, in December 2011 they have issued a spate of articles trying to paint Ron Paul as a dangerous kook and routinely print unsubstantiated claims against Ron Paul as if they were facts. The bias is quite easy to see. Nymortgagerefinancing (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternately, Ron Paul could be a dangerous kook. --74.241.97.171 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

there is nothing "right" about this Ron Fournier guy in charge. E.g. see his article http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/will-millennials-become-generation-x-treme-20130503 on the problem of Millenials getting "apathetic" about American political process. The useless RINO is concerned about "polarization" between Conservative and leftist leaning young people and thinks that "Leaders today must urgently set an example". Right... 76.119.30.87 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Fournier is a party-line Republican and has in the past worked as a Karl Rove operative. Maybe he's a "RINO" by Tea Party standards, but by the standards of most Americans he's clearly conservative. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I just added two cleanup templates based on the fact that this article is all lead and no body. At a glance, it doesn't look terribly difficult to fix, so hopefully I'll be back in a few days to add basic section headings or something. Infiniteparentheses (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Journal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121019091753/http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/tag/stuart-taylor to http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/tag/stuart-taylor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Journal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115024910/http://www.brookings.edu/experts/rauchj.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/experts/rauchj.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)