This is an excellent magazine. It is published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and its standards are high, despite the remarks by the previous reviewer. RE: Nvasky, ignore the ad hominem attack. Executive Editor Michael Hoyt describes Navasky's role as "99% financial," saying "he doesn't push anything editorially," and that he has "learned how to get a small magazine of ideas into the black, and he's trying to come up with some strategies for us." CJR makes some articles available for free on its web site, so check them out and see for yourself.

The CJR, as insiders call it, presents itself as an independant review of journalism, untainted by political associations, and sponsored by that great bastion of learning and academic attainment, Columbia University.

The reality, however, is quite different.

In May 31 of 2005, it was revealed that Victor Navasky, editor of the radical left "Nation", had in fact for some time been editing and managing the CJR- despite appearing nowhere on the CJR's masthead. So much for independance and being untainted by political associations. Navasky has since been appointed to the editorship of the paper.

The CJR has long been tainted by hidden poitical connections. In 1996 they published a piece called "The Alar 'Scare' Was For Real" which criticized the notion that the Natural Resources Defense Council had presented a biased and innacurate version of Alar chemical story. Negin was credited in the piece as a "Washington D.C.-based writer." What the CJR didn't say was that Negin himself was a writer for the National Resources Defense Council.

In short, the CJR is guilty of everything it claims to find in the mainstream press- massive, disguised, bias. If the CJR's biases happen to coincide with your personal predjudices, you may find that the CJR is for you. If, however, you're looking for an an open and honest review of the press- keep looking.