A Matter of Opinion
  • Alternative view 1 of A Matter of Opinion
  • Alternative view 2 of A Matter of Opinion

A Matter of Opinion

by Victor S. Navasky
     
 

View All Available Formats & Editions

Winner of the 2005 George Polk Book Award

Victor S. Navasky is the renowned editor, writer, and educator who was at the helm of The Nation for almost thirty years. A Matter of Opinion, a scintillating reflection on his experiences, is an extraordinary political document--and a passionately written, irresistibly charming account of a great

Overview

Winner of the 2005 George Polk Book Award

Victor S. Navasky is the renowned editor, writer, and educator who was at the helm of The Nation for almost thirty years. A Matter of Opinion, a scintillating reflection on his experiences, is an extraordinary political document--and a passionately written, irresistibly charming account of a great journalistic tradition.

Editorial Reviews

From the Publisher

A Matter of Opinion is the autobiography of a great magazine, by the person who has best embodied it over the years. 'Wily' and 'parsimonious' are the adjectives most commonly applied to Navasky; now we can add 'charming,' 'witty,' and 'consistently entertaining.'” —Barbara Ehrenreich

“Anybody who has ever dreamed of starting a magazine, or worried that the country is losing the ability to speak seriously to itself, should read A Matter of Opinion.” —The New York Times Book Review

“Victor S. Navasky is that most valuable of journalists: the subversive patriot who loves his country too much to see it become a plaything for plutocrats, scalawags, and scoundrels; who loves justice too much to see it betrayed by false prophets; and who loves his craft too much to see it as anything but a calling. I cherish this account of his adventures for reminding us why the journalism of opinion is the heart and soul of democracy--as long as the last opinion is never assumed to be the right one.” —Bill Moyers

“Someone had to keep the left flag flying, [and] A Matter of Opinion exhibits malice toward none.” —Christopher Hitchens's Vanity Fair "Hall of Fame" nomination

“A perambulating hybrid of a book, part memoir and part case study of how to keep a small, fractious political magazine afloat in an age of big media.” —The Boston Globe

“Navasky's book is a reminder of a time when magazines served as forums for 'moral and political argument, rational deliberation, critical analysis of the problem.' Those are qualities that are missing in American political life right now, and not just on the left.” —Time

“Let there be no doubt: Victor S. Navasky is a force for our time. So is this book--going from The Nation to a compelling comment on the current scene. It is a book for true enjoyment and enlightenment.” —John Kenneth Galbraith

“This has got to be the kinkiest love story of our time--a man in love with a magazine and the two of them in love with a nation. What a ménage! Untamed passion, big money, adult language, breakups, rapprochements, and a wonderful assortment of eccentric supporting characters--it's all here in Navasky's brave confession. But let the reader be warned: this bizarre love story, though such wicked fun to read, puts our deepest moral values on display.” —E. L. Doctorow

“The front-room tour of [Navasky's] charmed rise . . . [tirelessly advances] the idea that the world as we know it won't be saved without [journals of opinion].” —The New Yorker

“[A] graceful mix of memoir and meditation on journals of opinion and the stubborn enthusiasts who end up running them. . . . Full of strong philosophical medicine and nutritious anecdotes.” —John Leonard, Harper's Magazine

“Victor S. Navasky brings a rare blend of idealism and clear-minded realism to his engrossing book, and his literary style is masterful. I love and admire his examination of and prescriptions for the most vital issues of our age.” —George McGovern

“The political landscape may be at its most bleak, yet there appears in all its rubble a piece of greenery--a hip, muckraking journal, The Nation, singularly triumphant. (Its readership is greater than ever.) What makes A Matter of Opinion so delightful is the teller of the tale. Vic Navasky, The Nation's publisher, is not only a journalist in the tradition of Lincoln Steffens, George Seldes, and I. F. Stone but a natural born storyteller. His wonderful book rushes on like a house afire. And it's funny, too.” —Studs Terkel

“If Victor S. Navasky had his modest way, he would have you believe this is a book about American magazines and their vital role in the conversations of a democracy. It is much more. This wry, anecdote-filled page-turner also reveals why Navasky is an editor whom journalists would kill to work for if he weren't so cheap. He's curious. He listens. He laughs. He makes mistakes and sometimes admits them. He is as generous as he is smart. A Matter of Opinion is a vivid account of our times and, in its modest way, reveals his own important role in them.” —Ken Auletta

Publishers Weekly
As the mordant maxim byword at the offices of a certain left-wing weekly has it, "If it's bad for the country, it's good for The Nation" (the magazine's circulation has risen 71% since the 2000 election of George Bush). Of course, an alternative theory might emphasize Navasky's sure-handed stewardship of the country's "oldest weekly magazine" over the last 25 years. After editing a prominent 1960s satirical magazine (the Monocle) and working at the New York Times Magazine, Navasky, with his combination of bedrock principle and a light touch, was a perfect fit at the Nation. Unmistakably confined to professional doings (family members are hardly mentioned), this memoir recounts myriad tempests in teapots (and some not so trifling), lawsuits, donnybrooks, controversies and lines drawn in the sand. If the New Republic is where liberals address Washington, the Nation is where liberals talk among themselves. Navasky discusses many of his lively charges and colleagues (Trillin, Ephron, Hitchens, Sontag), and relates his thinking behind some of his most important decisions as an editor. Too fragmented to substitute for a history of the left over the past few decades, Navasky's story is finally about the nuts and bolts of editing an intellectual journal, interesting enough in its own right. Agent, Amanda Urban. (May) Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.
Library Journal
Navasky recalls a glorious career in journalism, but expect a few barbs about mass media today-this is the editor of the Nation, after all. Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
The country's oldest weekly magazine, a fixture of liberal households since the Civil War, has a dirty secret, its long-time editor/publisher discloses. It loses money. But then, writes Navasky (Naming Names, the 1982 National Book Award winner), so does National Review, and so does just about every other journal of opinion published here. Indeed, The Nation has always lost money. So why go on publishing so poor a business prospect? Navasky's answer is a spirited defense of the independent press, one that incidentally addresses why nonprofit status is a bad thing overall. In this elegant book-a combination memoir, intellectual history, and how-to guide for would-be magazine publishers-he allows that the thrill of chasing news and potential donors alike has been quite enough to keep his heart in the game for the last quarter-century, tough as that game is. Too tough for the executives at Disney, at least, who have been threatening to shut down ABC's Nightline as irrelevant: "If relevance is measured by the bottom line," Navasky writes, "they are right. I was glad to be in the un-mass media." Navasky cheerfully predicts that its audience will grow with the follies of the Bush administration: "If it's bad for the country, it's good for The Nation." (He adds: "But even I would have a qualm or two if I thought that The Nation's business future depended on an imperial America's unilateral aggression abroad and suppression of civil liberties at home.") When he's not covering the practicalities of publishing-and this is worth any five textbooks on the subject-Navasky ponders the odd house he heads, famously and oddly divided, with columnists feuding among themselves (Christopher Hitchens vs.Alexander Cockburn, Christopher Hitchens vs. The Left in re Iraq, and so forth) and left stalwarts like the late Susan Sontag calling it to task for lapses in political correctness. And all the while the right, of course, brands it a bastion of Bolshevism. It's politics as usual, in other words, lively and always surprising. A pleasure for general readers, and a blessing for students of the independent media and contemporary letters.

Product Details

ISBN-13:
9780312425548
Publisher:
Picador
Publication date:
05/16/2006
Edition description:
First Edition
Pages:
480
Product dimensions:
5.50(w) x 8.50(h) x 1.06(d)

Read an Excerpt

A Matter of Opinion


By VICTOR S. NAVASKY

Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Copyright © 2005 Victor S. Navasky
All right reserved.

ISBN: 0-374-29997-8


Chapter One

A PERSONAL NOTE

I am the first member of my family to earn a college degree (A.B., Swarthmore 1954).

My father, Macy, should have gone to college but couldn't because he had to go to work for his father, who had come to New York from Russia in the 1890s and founded a small clothing manufacturing business in New York City's garment district. "Students and Young Men's Clothing," it said on the pencil advertising "Navasky & Sons," which later became the Sturdybuilt Company. Although he subscribed to The Nation and The New Republic, my father was no radical, and my grandfather never had a kind word to say about labor unions, even in Yiddish. The other sons, my father's brothers, were Alex and Abe. That's Alexander Hamilton Navasky and Abraham Lincoln Navasky. My mother, nee Esther Goldberg, was my father's secretary, until she married him and "retired."

My father, who went to New York City's High School of Commerce, where he was an A student, hated business. He wanted to be a writer, but the closest he came to getting published was letters to an occasional editor. His specialty was writing letters to Dan Parker, a New York Daily Mirror sports columnist who thought all fights were fixed. My father, a fan, thought none were:

9/15/50 Dear Parker: What this town needs are sportswriters who know that athletes reach a peak and then pass it, and when past it are not as good as when at it. Those strange things surrounding La Motta's recent fights were the key-pounders who hadn't assimilated this elementary truth ... Occasionally an admirer, Yours, Macy.

Parker would reply on the back of Macy's notepaper: "You certainly are a smart guy, Macy, even if you do say so yourself." When his father died, my father sold his share of the family business, at least partly, I always assumed, so that I would never have to go into it. At age forty-six, dragging my mother along, he enrolled in a short-story-writing seminar at our local public library where as far as I could figure out, he was the star student. Each week he would be asked to read his story, and after comments and revisions, he would put seven copies of his story in seven envelopes and send them off to seven magazines, like The Dial, the Saturday Review, and Collier's, along with self-addressed return envelopes. Over the course of the semester he received no acceptances but three or four encouraging letters, including one from the editor of The Dial, who wanted to know if he was working on a novel, and if so, asked to see it. Eventually he threw in the towel and spent the remainder of his days outwitting the stock market, writing letters to Dan Parker, and working his way through Faulkner, Dostoevsky, and the rest of the masters. It wasn't until years later that I discovered that each week my father had been sending out one original typed copy and six increasingly illegible carbon copies of the same stories, and that 100 percent of the encouraging notes were in response to the original manuscripts.

I had by accident what I later came to feel was an ideal education: From age five to eleven I attended the Rudolph Steiner School, whose aim was to cultivate the spirit by way of the arts; from eleven to seventeen I went to the Little Red School House and its high school, Elisabeth Irwin, whose mission, through community engagement, was to imbue students with a social conscience; and from eighteen to twenty-one I attended Swarthmore College, which focused on the intellect and the life of the mind in a Quaker context. For dessert, and as a correction to all of the above (age twenty-two to twenty-four), I served in the U.S. armed forces, after which I attended Yale Law School, which served as a bridge to the so-called real world.

My father chose the Rudolph Steiner School because, based on his own experience, he believed that public school "broke the spirit." Little did he know that Rudolph Steiner the man, founder of something called anthroposophy, literally believed that two weeks after the body expired the spirit surveyed the arc of its life and then was reincarnated in another vessel. (This I discovered only many years later-we were not taught reincarnation in school.) I chose Little Red because the best stickball player on my block went there. When I enrolled, neither I nor my parents knew that it had started as an experimental public school based on John Dewey's theories of progressive education and broke away when Elisabeth Irwin discovered that the Board of Education couldn't tolerate its independent ways. My parents knew mainly that it meant my taking a daily subway ride down to Greenwich Village, then still a bohemian redoubt, where the school was located.

Swarthmore chose me in the sense that it was the only college to which I had applied that accepted me.

At none of these institutions did I take a course in journalism or writing.

At Rudolph Steiner I learned my vowel sounds by acting them out in eurythmy classes ("O is for oak tree, tall and strong"). But I remember that after a third-grade field trip to a farm in upstate New York (an organic farm, of course-Rudolph Steiner was light-years ahead of the curve), our assignment the following week was to write 300 words on the trip. I chose as my topic "A Day in the Life of a Farmer" and dutifully turned in my paper. When it came back my teacher had written, "This is lovely, Victor. But what about the milking of the goat and the cows, and what about making the fire and dinner around the family table, and what about that tractor you rode on?" I had also forgotten to mention pitching hay. "Please fix."

So I dutifully fixed and a few days later turned in my much expanded paper. This time my teacher wrote, "This is wonderful, Victor. You have really captured what it is like to be a farmer. But it is far longer than 300 words. Please revise, keeping in all the facts, but don't use more than 300 words."

And so I did and so I didn't.

At Little Red I remember putting out a lame, mimeographed parody of the high school's photo-offset paper, Info, which was called, with sublime eighth-grade imagination, Ofni (Info spelled backward, get it?). But my real literary, education came from an inspirational high-school English teacher, Mr. Marvin. Mr. Marvin would spend much of his time reading aloud from his favorite poems-and not only would his heart leap up when he beheld a rainbow in the sky, but his whole body seemed to follow, and depending on the poem, like a ballet dancer he would often end up en pointe.

He also taught us about literary standards. The day we returned from summer vacation, he went around the class asking what we thought of the suggested summer reading, Moby-Dick. When my friend Richard Atkinson courageously (I thought) said he thought it was "boring," Mr. Marvin said, "Moby-Dick isn't on trial, Mr. Atkinson, you are."

At Elisabeth Irwin I learned about politics less through what we were taught in the classroom than from the songs we sang and the hootenannies featuring such subversives as Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, and Sonny Terry. They and we sang the anti-Fascist songs of the International Brigade in Spain, the labor songs of the CIO PAC ("Which Side Are You On?"), the freedom songs of the civil rights movement ("Lift Every, Voice and Sing"), the protest songs from the Warsaw Ghetto, and yes, of the Chinese, Soviet, and American revolutions; and just for the fun of it, love songs and ditties like "Newspapermen Meet Such Interesting People."

Over the years, I have learned from George Orwell, from Khruschev's revelations at the Twentieth Party Congress, from Gorbachev's and other memoirs, from the Venona decrypts and selected Soviet archives, some of the many things wrong with this particular naive internationalist vision of "the new world a-comin'." But as the democratic socialist Michael Harrington wrote in 1977 in The Vast Majority, although the popular-front vision was sometimes manipulated to rationalize cruelty rather than to promote kindness, "for all its confusions and evasions and contradictions, it was a corruption of something good that always remained in it: of an internationalism that is still the only hope of mankind. My heart still quickens when I hear the songs of the International Brigade." Mine, too.

At Swarthmore, a nondenominational college founded by liberal Quakers (the Hicksites, followers of the early-nineteenth-century pastor Elias Hicks, who believed, among other things, in coeducation), I co-edited the weekly Phoenix, the student paper, and contributed to an upstart student periodical called the Lit. Although I didn't understand it at the time, my real magazine education came from the college's honors program, modeled by Frank Aydelotte after Oxford's tutorials. If you entered the honors program, in your junior and senior years you attended no lectures, took no exams, and received no term grades. Instead, you took eight small-group seminars (two per semester), at the end of which you were subjected to a battery of written and oral exams from "outside" examiners; i.e., professors from other institutions, who knew nothing about you other than what had been on your reading list. The theory was that the weekly seminars would be unpolluted by students trying to impress professors.

For me, though, the requirement of writing a weekly, unfootnoted, six-to-eight-page paper worked well, the equivalent of writing a weekly journalistic essay on deadline; the give-and-take in the seminars was the equivalent of an editorial conference: and the sharing of one's weekly paper with fellow students (we each compiled each other's papers along with our own in ever-thickening spring binders) was a form of pseudo-publication. The honors program still survives, albeit in a diluted form. In the late 1960s, new generations of students attacked the honors seminars as elitist (only about 40 percent of the students were admitted to them), sexist (professors were expected to provide refreshments for the home-based seminars, a responsibility that frequently fell upon their mostly female spouses), and the formula of four seminars in one's major and two in each of two related minors seemed too narrow and inflexible. Many of the students now prefer to take a year overseas.

At Swarthmore one of my favorite professors was Murray Stedman, who taught political science. He told us if we remembered nothing else we should commit to memory Robert MacIver's definition of myth ("a value-impregnated belief"). I also remember his line about why the student-run commons store, which dispensed hundreds of cups of coffee a day, nevertheless lost money. "Because," he said, "Swarthmore students have an anti-business bias. Put three City College business majors in charge of that store and in six months they will be making money hand over fist." I told him that the anti-business bias was a myth, but in my case at least was factually correct. It wasn't until decades later, after I entered the Harvard Business School, that I tried to do something about it.

"It's always better, when job hunting, to apply to a specific person rather than to an anonymous title," I tell my students, "and if possible to come with a connection to that person." I secured my own first job in the journalism business that way, although it wasn't until I had it that I learned that the old cliche-it's not what you know but whom you know-was not quite right.

During a break in a Shakespeare seminar at Swarthmore, my classmate Pat Bryson and I got to talking about our summer plans or, in my case, lack of them. "What would you like to do?" Pat asked. "Work on a newspaper or magazine," I said. "Well, maybe Daddy can help you," Pat said, in her cute upper-class Brit accent, "but it would have to be in England. Would that be all right?" "Would it!" I said.

Pat suggested that I call Daddy over the Christmas holidays and see whether he might help.

George Bryson had for fifteen years been the founder and managing director of the world-famous advertising agency Young & Rubicam's London office. In that capacity he dealt with-placed ads for and otherwise represented Y&R in-British newspapers, magazines, and television, and perhaps had some contacts he could put at my disposal. Now he was back in News York, though all his press contacts were in England. I called Mr. Bryson over the holidays. He invited me for a drink at his posh East Side apartment and we discussed two papers: the News of the World, which was a weekly with a circulation in the millions, and the Daily Mirror, a Labour daily, which seemed more my speed.

When I mentioned the conversation to Larry Lafore, my history professor, who had spent the previous year on sabbatical in the U.K., he said, "Oh, if you have a choice by all means do News of the World." He explained that a typical News of the World article might be an in-depth report on a parish priest who raped eight of his parishioners, but it would appear under a heading like "Clergyman Commits Indiscretion." Larry taught diplomatic history, but he was a gifted social historian, novelist, and world-class teacher. He taught one class on the history of England by having each student write for his term paper a chapter in a collective novel. He reeked of credibility and savoir faire. He lectured without notes, hut his perfectly structured talks always ended a second before the bell, after which he would disappear out the door. Only on the last class of the semester did he end his class at the window, rather than the door. With nonchalant aplomb he proceeded to open the window and make his exit onto the fire escape.

A few months later I found myself on a student ship, Holland America's Groote Beer. After six rocky days at sea, I disembarked at Southampton, and once in London headed right for the offices of News of the World, where after a half-hour wait the editor saw me. He explained that he was seeing me as a courtesy to Mr. Bryson, but that the chapel (the British equivalent of the union local) would have his head if a nonchapel member "so much as lifted a pencil." But I came all the way from New York, I began to whine, when he continued. "Now," he said, "the provinces are something else again. Would you mind going to Worcester? If we presented you to The Berrow's Worcester Journal as an American who was studying the British press-that's really what you're doing, isn't it?"-he asked, as he began writing what I assumed to be a letter of introduction to a Mr. Jack Worrell, proprietor of the Berrow's Worcester Journal, the world's oldest weekly. "Well, yes, if you say so, although I was hoping to get some experience," I volunteered tentatively.

Continues...


Excerpted from A Matter of Opinion by VICTOR S. NAVASKY Copyright © 2005 by Victor S. Navasky. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Meet the Author

Victor S. Navasky came to The Nation as editor in 1978, was made publisher and general partner in 1995, and is now publisher emeritus. The Delacorte Professor of Journalism at Columbia University and Director of the George Delacorte Center for Magazine Journalism, he chairs the Columbia Journalism Review. He was the founder, editor, and publisher of Monocle, an editor for the New York Times Magazine, and a columnist for the New York Times Book Review. The author of Naming Names, which won the National Book Award in 1982, and Kennedy Justice, he lives in New York City.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network

     

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >