While pretending to cover the issues today, Liz Cox Barnett still cannot mention Mr. Rosen. Is there a reason for that? (I was so offended by Ms. Cox Barnett's post, I almost left a comment but I saw a community member had beat me to it.)
So what is going on here? Does Victor Navasky have some problem with women that translates into the site's inability to call out Mr. Rosen's claim that sexual assault was okay because it was "war mongerer" Lara Logan?
If so, that would certainly explain many rumors about Mr. Navasky's problems with women of the years.
Would Mr. Navasky care to comment on that? Would CJR?
Would someone like to explain how their silence on Mr. Rosen's comments fits into their claim that, "Columbia Journalism Review’s mission is to encourage and stimulate excellence in journalism in the service of a free society. It is both a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms, from newspapers to magazines to radio, television, and the Web. Founded in 1961 under the auspices of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, CJR examines day-to-day press performance as well as the forces that affect that performance."?
Like most, I am well aware of how attached to Mr. Rosen Mr. Navasky is. But that little conflict of interest -- and any other Mr. Navasky may have -- should not prevent CJR from living up to its stated mission.
Who the hell do they think they are kidding?
This old granny has seen a lot of things but I am having a very difficult time think of a more disgusting moment then when CJR 'covered' a story by refusing to cover it.
Again, I will assume all those rumors of Mr. Navasky's problems with women were true.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today: