Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily ScoopPOLITICS & COMMUNITY
James Weinstein
interviewed by Anthony Qaiyum
Look for this icon and listen to James Weinstein in Real Audio! If you haven't downloaded the free Real Audio 2.0 player yet, hurry on over to Progressive networks and hear what you've been missing.
I never liked the term "alternative media" . . . Anything other than what you're reading right now is an alternative.
James Weinstein is the founder and editor of In These Times, a biweekly political magazine.
Tripod: Some people might say that "In These Times" (ITT) is progressive, some might say liberal, some alternative. As the publisher and editor, how would you describe your magazine?
JW: Well, we're partly progressive, partly liberal, we're certainly an alternative, and most of us are socialists.
Tripod: Can you give us a little history of ITT? How it started, and how long you've been involved with it?
JW: I started it. November will be our 20th anniversary. Actually I moved to Chicago in August of 1976 to start it. I was living in San Francisco.
This grew out of a series of publications of a more academic nature that I've been involved with since the early 60's, or even the very late 50's. "Studies on the Left" was published in Madison from '59 to '63, and then in New York from '63 to '67. And what is now known as "Socialist Review," which I started in '69, is still publishing. It is now being published by Duke University.
It was part of what I had hoped to be a process of a development of a sane and viable New Left in the United States after the disaster of SDS in the late 60's. The idea being to be something more than just an academic publication that would be addressed to general readers; that would cover news and analysis; that would attempt to explain rather than just report little snippets and little facts of news like the daily press does; to give background to put things in historical perspective. In other words to give material to people who are seriously involved in one form or another of social or political action, so that they have some kind of grounding and coherent worldview.
Tripod: How has your readership grown or changed over the years?
JW: Unfortunately it hasn't grown very much. We're now around 20,000 and we've been around 20,000 for 10 years or more, fluctuating a bit in either direction. I don't think that the readership has changed very much. Obviously, it's different people. We do not have any particular social base. Certainly no ethnic or occupational base. Our readers are people who are interested in citizenship and participation in the political and social development of the country -- and who, therefore, are found across any of the normal publishing sociological descriptions. Most magazines or publications that have succeeded in the last 30 years have had a particular constituency, whether it's occupational, like "Psychology Today", or recreational, like "Runners' World", or whatever. There have been very few general circulation or general interest publications that have started in the last 20 years since we started ours that have survived. In fact, on the left, I can't think of any other than ourselves that have survived pretty much in the form and for the purpose that they began publishing.
So we are pretty unique. In some ways we are close to what "The Nation" does, but that's a progressive magazine we might be considered close to. On the other hand, we might be considered close to "National Catholic Reporter", which is one of my favorite publications. So there really isn't anything else that is close to doing what we attempt to do.
Tripod: It seems that there's a healthy dose of suspicion for mainstream media in ITT. How do you view the relationship between mainstream media and alternative media?
JW: I never liked the term "alternative media," because to me ITT is an alternative only in the sense that "The (Chicago) Sun Times" is an alternative to "The Chicago Tribune". Anything other than what you're reading right now is an alternative. But alternative always implied marginal or out of the mainstream, and so on. And of course we are. But we're only out of the mainstream because we don't have the money to promote ourselves or to pay writers a lot so we can get really consistent, first-class, high quality writing. But we don't strive to be there. We don't strive to be an alternative in the sense in which that is usually used to dismiss somebody. We try to write in a style and with a clarity that would make us accessible to pretty much anybody who is reasonably educated, interested in what's going on in this country and why, and wants to get a coherent view of world developments.
Tripod: The term "alternative" may not be best. Still, do you have problems with the mainstream media?
JW: Well, there is a fundamental difference between us and the mainstream media. That's true. We are not a corporate owned, commercial enterprise. The purpose of putting out ITT is not to make money -- or to defend the existing system of corporate capitalism. So, in our view, the mainstream media is really the corporate media. It has an implicit agenda -- which, of course, it never makes explicit -- which is to defend and normalize corporate culture so that that is seen by everybody as being objective, because that's what is. And never to question any of the underlying assumptions. So in that sense, we are an alternative in that we are independent; we are not-for-profit; we have a point of view; and we let people know what our point of view is.
The media in this country traditionally -- that is in the 19th century -- were always very clearly partisan. Look at the names of newspapers like "The Springfield Republican", or "The Something-or-Other Democrat", whatever. At one time, we had a very lively media in which political ideas and viewpoints were clearly expressed, and people read papers that represented their worldviews. That changed with the development of advertising and consumer culture, because it was discovered that you could make a lot more money by appearing to be non-partisan so that everybody could read your publication. "The Chicago Tribune" is a good example. It used to be know as, and boasted about being, a right-wing, conservative Republican newspaper. Now it is one of the more liberal papers in many respects. It still has the same underlying politics and the underlying loyalties, but would no longer describe itself as a partisan journal. That's been true for at least the last 20 or 25 years. So in that sense, we're clearly different.
Tripod: You cover a wide range of issues, but one of those which strikes me the most is your attention to unfair labor practices. I know that you've been focusing on labor disputes long before Buchanan recently helped bring them into the national spotlight. Do you see this mainstream attention as a positive outcome of Buchanan's campaign?
JW: Oh, sure. Labor, for many years, was a non-entity as far as the public media was concerned. You couldn't get a story about labor, whether it's a labor dispute, or a labor organizing, or labor conditions, or anything of that kind. Those stories were very, very rare. Generally speaking, the only stories that got into the commercial media were stories of labor union corruption, of which, unfortunately, there were more than enough. We have always considered labor to be one of the key elements in the matrix of our society, and that if you don't understand what's going on among organized working people, you really don't understand American politics and social developments.
That's one aspect of what we write about. Of course, we don't write that much about them, but compared to other publications we've always -- well I would say, in all due modesty, and I wouldn't say this about many other things -- we've had probably the best overall labor coverage of any general circulation publication in the country for the last 20 years or so. And it's interesting that just now, after Buchanan, who made this great contribution -- that the Left should have made -- to public debate, now you see lots of labor stories. Suddenly "The New York Times" is interested in what's going on in the labor movement. So are other newspapers -- "The Chicago Tribune", "Sun Times", and so on. Pretty much all around the country. Even in "The New Yorker". So there has been that change. In part this is something that Buchanan helped create, and in part it is something that he picked up on, but the reason for this increased interest is what Buchanan made clear -- there is a very large section of our society that is very much concerned with what's happening to their employment, to the stagnation in their incomes, and insecurity in their jobs, and so on.
Tripod: Unlike many political magazines, you haven't really jumped on the cyber-bandwagon and done extensive coverage of the Internet and technology. What do you think about the so-called Information Revolution?
JW: I think for purposes of research the Internet is invaluable. As a means of communication, what I conjure up in my own mind is pictures of computer nerds who never leave their desks and sit in front of computers all day and search and skim and surf through the Net. These are people who become less and less citizens because they become more and more privatized and isolated. So I don't think there's much of a political or social benefit, except for those people who are doing research. If you're writing a book or an article it's wonderful, because you can find almost anything on it if you know clearly what it is that you want and you know how to look for it. But as a source of educating people I think it's essentially useless.
Tripod: What is your view of technology in general? And is it affected by your pro-labor stance?
JW: No. I think the meaning of technology depends on who uses it and for what purpose. It's not technology itself that's either good or bad. It's more or less an inevitable process in a capitalist society that technology is going to develop to the point where there will be very little left of labor. As far as goods production is concerned, in another 15 to 20 years the so-called working class -- if you think of it only in terms of industrial production -- will be nonexistent. The whole meaning of labor then changes. What jobs people have, if they have any jobs, what people consider work, what will be a legitimate source of income, and so on.
Tripod: Is that a good thing or a bad thing -- how do you deal with that change?
JW: It's either a good or a bad thing depending on you deal with it. If you deal with it in the way that corporate America is dealing with it, then it's a horrible thing, because it means that people are out of work, that they're desperate for jobs, that people who made $20 an hour five years ago are now willing to work for six or seven dollars an hour. People who could make a living working 35 or 40 hours a week are now working 60 or 70 hours a week. Families that had one wage earner and could live comfortably now have two, or sometimes even three and four, wage earners and still don't live any more comfortably. If you see it as a potential for abundance in this country and for a work and income that is not connected to wage labor, then it would have a tremendously liberating potential.
In the present context, where there is only one world ideology, one worldview that is dominant, it's a social disaster, but it doesn't need to be.
Tripod: The Internet has allowed to people to create electronic 'zines for little or no cost. Do you think this is a good thing?
JW: I don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's sort of irrelevant. It's good for the little group of people who read the 'zines, if they enjoy 'em. [laughs]
Tripod: Yeah, while there are some good 'zines, the majority out there aren't very good. Do you have any advice for young people out there wishing to start their own publication?
JW: It depends what the purpose of it is. If it's to talk to other people on the Net, my advice is go ahead and do it on the Net. If the point is to, in some way, reach out beyond to people who move about in the world and don't just sit in front of their computers all day, then get into print journalism.
Tripod: Would you say that ITT has a distinct Chicago flavor?
JW: Mmmm, no. We probably have a little bit more Midwest-Chicago orientation than not, but we have less of a Chicago orientation, for example, than "The Nation", which is published in New York, has a New York orientation. Or "Mother Jones", which is published in San Francisco, has a West Coast orientation. You can't totally escape that, and neither is it particularly desirable to totally escape it, but we are not narrowly focused on Chicago or the Midwest. We are a national publication and we attempt to reflect that in our coverage. Of course we don't do it fully or as well as we should, but in large part that's a resource question.
Tripod: How would the magazine have been different if it were somewhere else?
JW: It would have been different if we had started in any one of those places, and that's why, incidentally, I moved to Chicago to start it. I was living in San Francisco when I decided to do this. We pretty much rejected San Francisco right off the top, because it was too marginal, too counter-culturey, and also, being on the West Coast, too removed from the rest of America. I always had a joke about San Francisco when I lived there that their three main industries were tourism, psychotherapy, and macramé.
There were some people who wanted us to start the magazine in Washington. I didn't want to do that, because I know that if you're in Washington it's almost impossible not to get sucked into Capitol Hill syndrome. We wanted to reflect what's going on in America, not what's going on in the government. We rejected New York, because New York in its own way is very provincial and overpowering and it does not reflect America. Chicago had none of the negatives. It's very hard to be in Chicago and not know what the American people are thinking and feeling. It's quite easy to be in New York or Washington or San Francisco and not know that. So in that sense, Chicago has helped to shape the magazine -- but basically it has helped to shape it by not distorting it.
Tripod: Among other things, you also have a lot of coverage on race-related issues. People always say that Chicago is the most segregated city in the nation. Is this true? And if it is, does it affect ITT's tone and coverage?
JW: It is true that Chicago is the most segregated from a residential and educational point of view. There are vast areas -- the West Side and the South Side -- that are essentially all African-American. And that's not true of a city like New York or even Los Angeles. So in that sense it is.
On the other hand, Chicago also has a very extensive interracial and inter-ethnic society and interaction. It's a much more political city than a city like New York, or most cities. People are involved in their communities. They are involved in the politics. There were just two primary campaigns for Congress. One was the first district that Jesse Jackson Jr. won and the other was in the third that a guy named Danny Davis won. There were five or six candidates in each of those races, there were organizations working for each one of them, there was serious debate -- people were involved in them. I don't know of many other communities or districts in the country where that kind of thing happens. It used to happen to some extent on the West Side of Manhattan, maybe in some of the Brooklyn or Bronx districts, but it's very rare that it happens today.
In that sense, Chicago is a very interesting city. I grew up in New York, lived there for almost 40 years. I much prefer Chicago as a place to live. I find it much more stimulating and interesting, although New York is wonderful in its own way.
"You can't have a democratic society if you're not working and fighting for the things that you think society should stand for and do."
Tripod: Right now on the national scene, neither of the two main parties are doing much to address the issues on which you focus. Would you like to see the creation of a third party?
JW: No, but I'd like to see the creation of a Left organization and movement that would function within the two party system on the Left in the way in which, as a model, the Christian Coalition has functioned within the Republican party -- both within and without the Republican party. It has its own identity, it has its own worldview, it has its own issues, and it participates in the life of the Republican party. As a matter of fact it is probably the most influential group within it even though it only represents maybe 15 percent of Republicans.
There is nothing analogous to that on the left in the Democratic party. There are little pockets of it, but no national organization or movement. I think if we're going to have a real democracy in this country we're going to need something like that. In a way, I am encouraged by these various, tiny little third party efforts, because what they say to me is that people are beginning to feel that they do need something, but I think that the idea that they're going to start a third party and have any significance other than removing themselves from the national debates is an illusion.
Tripod: Do you think that the creation of this Left movement could happen in the near future, especially given that it seems that everything is moving toward the center?
JW: I think it's possible. That doesn't mean I think it's probable. I mean, I hope it happens. Whatever signs I see of it I would certainly encourage.
Tripod: One of the reasons that so many people don't get involved in politics has to be that they don't have any hope that things can change. As editor of ITT surely you have to have hope despite very frustrating situations. Can you give any words of advice or encouragement concerning the possibility of social change?
JW: We need it. [laughs] Therefore, we should work for it. Optimism of the will and pessimism of the intellect -- which is to say, don't have illusions. But yeah, you can't have a democratic society if you're not working and fighting for the things that you think society should stand for and do. If you believe in democracy then you should be participating in something or trying to find a way to do it. It's very difficult, because there isn't much out there. When an individual looks out and sees nothing happening and if they don't know about us -- since we're journalism's best kept secret -- or similar publications, they don't even know where to go to find like-minded people. It's easy to see why there is so much disillusionment, cynicism, whatever, passivity. But that's the death of civil society, and that's the death of democracy if that continues.
For more information, or to subscribe to In These Times, call (800) 827-0270.
Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily Scoop Map | Search | Help | Send Us Comments
