Spring Break
11/17 Column: Response to Sam Norton: PPN Will Work to Engage All Readers
James Coan '09
Issue date: 11/3/08 Section: Opinion
While I agreed with most of the arguments written in Sam Norton's column "Attitudes and Platitudes" printed in the Prince last Friday, I feel the need to address his statement that "Magazines such as the Tory and Princeton Progressive Nation openly flaunt their ideological affiliations, thus turning off potential readers."
I sent him this response, which is very similar to one I posted on the comments page of the Prince, although it is edited to account for the fact that I have met with him in person since Friday. In this response, I followed an implication of the advice in his column that students should critique political statements publicly in the same manner they would in private.
At some level, I agree that each magazine has an ideological bent; the PPN is more liberal and the Tory is more conservative. I also understand how someone looking at the PPN magazine's cover may have jumped to the conclusion that the messages in our magazine would be entirely liberal in orientation and would belittle any conservative ideas in the process. On our cover, we had the phrase "Tomorrow's Focus" along with pictures that represent issues with quite strong liberal/progressive valences like health care, poverty, and global warming.
However, my editor's note in my previous comment indicates that the PPN is committed to consensus-building, including with conservatives. I wrote, "My extensive discussion with [Joel, publisher of the Tory] furthers my belief that conservatives will be capable of working with liberals and moderates on policy issues, although it will require significant dialogue and commitment from both parties. Ultimately, I believe supporters of Obama and McCain can make joint statements in support of specific policies."
In addition, one of our writers for the first issue, Dan May, is a conservative Republican. And while I stand by my statement from my editor's note that "Quite a few of the articles [in the Tory] were angry in tone rather than calmly expressing debatable opinions," at least its article about the financial crisis recognized the importance of some degree of financial regulation. That statement could be a jumping-off point for discussion between liberals and conservatives as government decides how to regulate the financial industry.
I sent him this response, which is very similar to one I posted on the comments page of the Prince, although it is edited to account for the fact that I have met with him in person since Friday. In this response, I followed an implication of the advice in his column that students should critique political statements publicly in the same manner they would in private.
At some level, I agree that each magazine has an ideological bent; the PPN is more liberal and the Tory is more conservative. I also understand how someone looking at the PPN magazine's cover may have jumped to the conclusion that the messages in our magazine would be entirely liberal in orientation and would belittle any conservative ideas in the process. On our cover, we had the phrase "Tomorrow's Focus" along with pictures that represent issues with quite strong liberal/progressive valences like health care, poverty, and global warming.
However, my editor's note in my previous comment indicates that the PPN is committed to consensus-building, including with conservatives. I wrote, "My extensive discussion with [Joel, publisher of the Tory] furthers my belief that conservatives will be capable of working with liberals and moderates on policy issues, although it will require significant dialogue and commitment from both parties. Ultimately, I believe supporters of Obama and McCain can make joint statements in support of specific policies."
In addition, one of our writers for the first issue, Dan May, is a conservative Republican. And while I stand by my statement from my editor's note that "Quite a few of the articles [in the Tory] were angry in tone rather than calmly expressing debatable opinions," at least its article about the financial crisis recognized the importance of some degree of financial regulation. That statement could be a jumping-off point for discussion between liberals and conservatives as government decides how to regulate the financial industry.
Be the first to comment on this story