Mother Jones

Peter Kilander peterk at enteract.com
Tue Aug 25 21:38:47 PDT 1998


Mr. Henwood is absolutely correct about said article. I found the piece all over the place, although the history lesson was interesting. I came upon MoJo after Klein's reign began and I never found it very radical or to my taste. So imagine my surprise upon discovering that its board is chock full of "died-in-the-wool leftists."

Ms. Craddock imagines a move to left entails more identity politics and political correctness. Huh? And if a magazine is losing money, the right thing to do is to shed supposedly unpopular [read leftist] political opinions. After the cold war was over, MoJo was thrust into competition with Vanity Fair and the New Yorker? Exsqueeze me? She seems to think "unpredictability" is a good thing. I wonder what her example of an unpredictable magazine would be, the New Republic?

I was so worked up about the piece, I was considering writing a letter. Imagine that. Guess I will.

Mr. Ackerman, The Progressive is a fine mag and The Baffler has a woeful lack of women and minority writers. Its desire to be hipper-than-thou is embarrassing and alienating, although I still buy and read it, partly because I live in Chicago. I do think magazines should allow a range of opinion and encourage debate rather than stifle it. As for MoJo, one can read about spirituality or how affirmative action is wrong in a ton of other magazines. But again, maybe the rational is that one should go mainstream in order to get out of debt.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list