Newt Gingrich Fires Back at Bob Schieffer over Steve Scalise - "Being in the Klan is OK If You Are a Democrat"

RELATED: The smearing of Steve Scalise

Sharyl Attkisson Sues Obama Administration For Violating Her Rights

NewsBusters.org:

Fox News's Howard Kurtz reported on Monday that former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department and the U.S. Postal Service over the hacking of her computers. Kurtz noted that Attkisson "alleges that three separate computer forensic exams showed that hackers used sophisticated methods to surreptitiously monitor her work between 2011 and 2013." The journalist seeks $35 million in damages against the federal agencies.

The Fox News host later pointed out that Attkisson and her lawyers claim to "have 'pretty good evidence' that these efforts were 'connected' to the Justice Department." The correspondent asserted that she was "caught in a 'Catch-22,' forcing her to use the lawsuit and an administrative complaint to discover more about the surveillance through the discovery process and to learn the identities of the 'John Does' named in the complaints."

On her own website, Attkisson outlined that she filed "administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, and certain unnamed employees and/or agents of the federal government." She added that she had "filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia alleging certain violations of her constitutional rights based on information implicating the federal government in illegal electronic monitoring and surveillance of her home and business computers and phones from 2011 to 2013."

Back in May 2013, the then-CBS journalist revealed that her personal and work computers had been hacked, and indicated during an interview with a radio station in Philadelphia that "there could be some relationship between these things and what's happened to James [Rosen]," who also had been investigated by the Department of Justice for his reporting about the CIA's intelligence on North Korea. Three weeks later, CBS News confirmed, via an investigation by an outside cyber security firm, that "Attkisson's computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson's accounts."

RELATED:  Concha: Chris Hayes’ Attkisson Interview Sums Up MSNBC’s Issues in One Question

Sean Hannity: Jon Stewart ‘Has His Head So Far Up Obama’s Ass’

Mediaite.com:

A new Jon Stewart interview out today includes the late night comic going off on Fox News. In particular, Stewart honed in on Sean Hannity as “probably the most loathsome dude over there.”

“That’s just pure cynicism, and it’s horrible,” Stewart said. “Everything is presented in as devious a manner as it could be possibly be presented.”

Well, Hannity fired back in a statement to Politico that mostly just highlighted how bad the economy is under President Obama. He refers to Obama as Stewart’s “beloved president,” and asks, “Do I even need to remind him about keeping our doctors, our health plans and saving money? And how is that healthcare website working out? Or Iraq, Isis, the ‘Russian reset’?”

And then Hannity went for the jugular:

“Jon’s problem is he has his head so far up Obama’s ass he cannot see clearly, he is obviously better suited to reading his joke writers material, and making his clapping seal audience happy.”

He also brings up how Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear featured Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam, who made comments many interpreted as support for a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie.

RELATED: Jon Stewart Whacks Bush As Inferior to Jimmy Carter, No Troublesome Facts Allowed

Chris Hayes’ Sharyl Attkisson Interview Sums Up MSNBC’s Issues in One Question

Mediaite.com:

This is the tale of two journalists. 

One has won multiple Emmy awards going back to the turn of the century, including an investigative series titled, “Bush Administration’s Bait and Switch on TARP and the Bank Bailout.” Another report revealed fraud around multi-billion dollar Halliburton contracts in Iraq. Sharyl Attkisson also was one of the first journalists to fly combat missions over Kosovo. 

The other journalist is the former editor of The Nation magazine. He hasn’t won any Emmy awards and invariably finishes a distant third in his 8:00 p.m. MSNBC time slot in a three horse race. Chris Hayes hasn’t flown in any combat missions as a journalist, but was hit by a modest rock covering the Ferguson riots this past August. 

During the Obama administration, Attkisson — who reported for CBS News for over two decades — captured a prestigious Edward R. Murrow award for “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious,” and was dominated for an Emmy for “Green Energy Going Red” (which focused on the failure of government-financed Solyndra) and an Investigative Emmy nomination for “Benghazi: Dying for Security.” 

By contrast, Hayes once won something called the May Sydney Award for his 2012 piece that declared fossil fuel companies must surrender $10 trillion in unburned gas and oil reserves to avert global disaster. And that’s about it on the trophy shelf. 

So when juxtaposing the two careers in terms of experience and accomplishment, and after watching Hayes’ interview with Attkisson — which included the host asking his guest if she was angling for a job at Fox News — the only thought that comes mind is the following:

He has some balls asking that question. And no, that’s not meant as a compliment. Hayes questioning someone as decorated as Attkisson if she fabricated an allegation against the government (for hacking her computer) was somehow motivated because she needed to enhance already one of the most — if not the most — extensive resumes in investigative journalism would be like Arsenio Hall asking Johnny Carson if he knew how to effectively interview a guest. 

Cojones, indeed. Especially coming from the guy known in the industry for singlehanded sinking his network’s primetime lineup from his barely-watched 8:00 PM position. No sympathy for the host following his show, however, as more than a few MSNBC insiders concede the biggest push to put Hayes in the most important time slot on the network came from Rachel Maddow, the real decision-maker for “The Place for Politics” at 30 Rock. 

Know this: Attkisson could pretty much work anywhere she wants, and doesn’t need to fabricate any stories in order to enhance her LinkedIn profile. And when her new book hits shelves this Tuesday, it will be on the best-seller list. Guaranteed. Why? She has the credibility that comes from dogged reporting regardless of which party controls the White House. All the aforementioned awards during the Bush and Obama administration prove that. 

We’ve often explored why MSNBC struggles so mightily,particularly lately — a disturbing development considering an election was just held. Is the presentation outside of its morning show an echo chamber, which doesn’t make for compelling television? Yes. Is the decision to go almost all opinion — even during dayside — making it impossible to discern one program from another? Yes. 

But here’s one more point to consider: How high is the quality of the guests? Are those guests diverse from a political perspective? 

The answers are “not high at all” and “no”. Rarely does a big-name Republican outside of a periodic Rand Paul interview ever appear on the network. There’s only so many times David Corn (Mother Jones), Joan Walsh or Ezra Klein can be booked. For any GOP member, there’s simply no upside when the audience is small and the hosts are agenda-driven with blinders on. 

Hayes landed a rare big interview on his program Friday night. It could have been fair, tough, and the kind of deep-dive he once excelled at when hosting Up on weekend mornings. 

Instead, the host simply became the caricature his network has become when calling into question the career motives of a guest with a resume he can only dream of having. 

RELATED:  Sharyl Attkisson Dismisses Media Matters: ‘Paid, Left-Wing Blog’ [VIDEO]

Bristol Palin Rips Liberal Media Coverage of Family Brawl, Tells Her Side of Story

Mediaite.com:

So by now, you’ve all heard about that infamous Palin family brawl and maybe even listened to the audio of Bristol Palin telling the police what happened. Well, now Palin has written a lengthy blog post not only clearing up exactly what happened, but lashing out at the media for its coverage of her family.

ADVERTISEMENT

Palin says a friend got knocked out by some guy, whose mom pushed her little sister Willow when she got upset with him. Bristol went to confront her, but ran into some giant man who reportedly shouted, “You cunt! Get the fuck out of here, you slut!”

And according to Palin, he proceeded to start pushing her down to the ground. She hit him in self-defense, and describes the intense situation as “scary and infuriating.”

Palin then takes the opportunity to go after the media for latching onto rumors and random people as eyewitnesses. She thinks this is part of a broader pattern of how conservative women are treated:

Violence against women is never okay… Even if that violence occurs against conservative women. Imagine for a second the outrage that would happen if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pushed by some guy. Had she tried to defend herself, the liberal media would’ve held her up as some feminist hero.

But it wasn’t Chelsea.

It wasn’t Hillary.

It wasn’t someone they liked or someone they agreed with.

It was a conservative.

And once again, the hypocrisy of the media is laid bare.

RELATED: CNN’s Carol Costello Apologizes for Comments About Palin Brawl

The "Heartland" Canard: Smearing Republicans On Immigration

NationalReview.com:

The heartlessness and nativist pandering that have broken America’s immigration system must give way to providing proper food, clothing, shelter and medical care to the Central American children streaming into the country.” So pronounced the editors of the New York Daily News. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne echoed the theme in his “Bordering on Heartless” column, noting that Glenn Beck has “come under fierce attack” for his proposal to bring food, water, teddy bears, and soccer balls to the children stuck at the border. “It’s one more sign,” Dionne writes, “of how the crisis at our border has brought out the very worst in our political system and a degree of plain nastiness that we should not be proud of as a nation.”

Charges of Republican or conservative heartlessness about the children flooding the border have been common. Some journalists seemingly cannot type the word “Republican” without the modifier “heartless.” But where is the evidence of this supposed callousness and why is it any greater among Republicans than Democrats?

The flag-waving protesters who confronted buses of children in Murietta, Calif., were unseemly. Whatever the merits of arguments over illegal immigration, children are clearly helpless pawns in the drama and should not be subjected to protests about actions over which they have no control.

But other than the protesters in Murietta — and no one has polled them to discover their political views, though it’s likely that they’re conservatives — by what standard are Republicans held to be heartless while Democrats are not?

Is it by arguing that the new illegal migrants be denied legal status? Jeh Johnson, the Obama administration’s secretary of Homeland Security, said just that. “Those who cross borders today illegally, including children, are not eligible for an earned path to citizenship.”

One can make a case that those Democrats who virtually invited a flood of underage migrants to our shores are more culpable for the humanitarian emergency than those who simply reacted once it was underway. The president’s unilateral granting of legal status to the children of illegal immigrants together with the 2008 law providing special treatment for children thought to be victims of trafficking sent a signal that was received and then amplified throughout Central America. The Department of Homeland Security seemed to know in advance that the deluge was coming: In January of 2014, it advertised for contractors to help with the “resettlement” of up to 65,000 underage migrants. Texas governor Rick Perry says that he warned the administration about the influx but got the impression that “they weren’t that interested.”

Or perhaps the president anticipated the flood but miscalculated its political effects, just as he misjudged the way the Bowe Bergdahl swap would be received. He may have thought that thousands of children crossing our borders would pressure Congress to pass the kind of immigration reform he favors. When it turned out differently, he resorted to partisan sniping. No crisis will “go to waste” — including those he creates himself.

This president engages in schoolyard taunts, calling Republican budget proposals, for example, a “meanwich” and a “stinkburger.” It’s hard to be a leader of all the people when you never rise above partisan hackery.

E. J. Dionne, like the president, thinks Republicans are cruel, but as he acknowledged, unless you are prepared to permit unlimited immigration, you must make “agonizing choices about whom to let in and whom to turn away.” Yes, the circumstances from which these unaccompanied children fled are terrible. But so are the home situations for many of the 4.5 million people worldwide currently waiting, legally, for visas to enter the United States. And while Central America is poor, corrupt, and crime-ridden, it cannot be the case that those conditions alone guarantee entry into the U.S. Most countries on earth meet those criteria.

Second to the human suffering, the most dismaying aspect of this border situation is that — unlike, say, the mortgage-finance issue — it’s a relatively straightforward problem. Congress could repeal the Wilberforce Act and provide funding for housing, feeding, and deporting the children who’ve crossed the border in the past several months. Private organizations could contribute time and money toward making the children comfortable and arranging for their safe return. The president could state unequivocally (with special messages targeted at Central America) that illegal migrants who arrive at our borders will be treated humanely but deported.

This won’t happen not because Republicans are meanies, but because the president’s unremitting partisanship and small-mindedness have left him unable to do even the easy things.

RELATED:  D’Souza: Obama Wants Border Chaos, Can ‘Prey’ on the American People’s Guilt

'Refugees': Liberal News Networks Refuse to Call Illegals Illegal

Breitbart.com:

Newbusters reports that in the wake of tens of thousands of illegal aliens swarming over the American border, the broadcast networks are refusing to use the word "illegal" to describe these illegal aliens. And that's not because they are using words like "invaders" or "soon-to-be Democrats."

Instead, viewers are hearing words like "refugee" and "undocumented." NBC News went so far as to create the Twitter handle #RefugeeRiders. 

NBC''s Lauer began his editorializing by arguing that “as so many issues in this country do it's going to boil down to politics. And wherever you stand on the issue, one side or the other, I'm not going to weigh in on that, it's hard to see those images moms and their kids in that situation.” The NBC host then encouraged his audience to share their thoughts using the Today show hashtag #RefugeeRiders. 

Throughout the entire report, NBC’s Miguel Almaguer refused to use the term “illegal immigrant” and instead used the term “undocumented immigrants" to describe the 140 individuals being bussed to California[.] …

On ABC’s Good Morning America, reader Ryan Smith didn’t even use the term “undocumented” during the news brief and instead noted that “ new information about those government buses full of immigrants which were blocked from entering a processing center in California Tuesday by this group of angry protesters who say the immigrants are a public safety threat.” During the 8:00 a.m. hour, Smith did use the term "illegal" in his news brief. 

Finally, CBS This Morning substitute anchor Margaret Brennan introduced its report by highlighting the “controversial government plan to transfer undocumented immigrants from Texas to California is set to continue this morning.” Reporter John Blackstone, who provided a full report Tuesday night did not use the term “illegal immigrant” again on Wednesday morning.

The Orwellian language is likely a result of polling that shows 59% of the country rightly blame President Obama for the current immigration crisis, and just as many  say that "the children should be ordered to leave the country."

There's no question that Obama and the Democrat Party's amnesty rhetoric lured tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children to risk harrowing journeys over hundreds and thousands of miles to get here. They are now overwhelming our immigrations systems and risking the spread of disease. 

RELATED:  New Documentary “We Ride to DC” Blows Lid Off Mainstream Media’s Agenda

Rachel Maddow Lies About Supreme Court Decision On Massachusetts Abortion Buffer Zones

Don't get your way, spin the facts and lie to your simpleton viewers--they'll believe just about anything that comes out your mouth anyway. All SCOTUS did with their ruling here was protect the rights of anyone who expresses their opposition to abortion, this ruling won't interfere with anyone's right to not be harassed or intimidated by abortion foes:

Rachel Maddow opened her show last night by highlighting instances of angry confrontation, and even violence, by pro-life advocates outside abortion clinics to rail against the Supreme Court decision striking down the “buffer zone” for protestors. And Maddow found it wildly hypocritical that the Supreme Court itself actually has a buffer zone.

Maddow pointed out that the Supreme Court has made sure it has a wide space around the building where protestors cannot show up so that they can’t, say, directly harass justices or other federal employees as they enter and exit the building. “Must be nice,” she said.

She pointed to a number of Supreme Court decisions where the concept of a “buffer zone” has been upheld, with respect to polling places and military funerals. (The latter ruling being decided after objections to the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.) Maddow declared, “From inside its own protective buffer zone, the Supreme Court issued its majority ruling striking down the one outside abortion clinics.”

And given all the horrible history of violence and intimidation outside abortion clinics, Maddow found it bewildering that the Supreme Court decision read that pro-life protestors just “wish to converse” with people.

RELATED: Networks: Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones Protect Women From 'Violent' and 'Offensive' Pro-Life Protests

Surprise: New York Times Covers Christie Bridge Rehash, Not IRS Scandal, on Front Page

Townhall.com:

Last week, America's self-proclaimed "paper of record" saw fit to run an A1 story on the Scott Walker smear heard 'round the media -- which we pilloried as one of the worst episodes of laziness, bias and journalistic malpractice in recent memory. (The Wall Street Journal's scathing editorial on the subject was also excellent). Today, the New York Times' front page was bereft of any IRS coverage, despite yesterday evening's contentious Congressional hearing. Noah Rothman grabbed screenshots of both the Gray Lady's print and online versions this morning. Lois Lerner's missing emails and IRS Commissioner John Koskonin's evasions were no where to be found: 

We'll return to the IRS matter in a moment, but first, a quick detour. The Times included an above-the-fold article about another bridge-related controversy "said to be linked" to Chris Christie. The story summarizes a mind-numbingly boring dispute over Christie's 2011 maneuvering to divert funds originally earmarked for a canceled Port Authority tunnel project to fix an aging bridge instead. The heart of this red hot story is whether the bridge repairs were technically within the Port Authority's purview. The Christie administration says the deal was reviewed and approved by attorneys on all sides of the deal, and a left-wing magazine reported that New York's Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, also signed off on the agreement. The Nation's story was published in...early April. The Bergen Record first had the story in March. In fact, the Times itself printed a story about the SEC investigating the bipartisan transportation pact two weeks ago. Today's article, therefore, is little more than a re-run, with the only obvious hook being Chris Christie and the word "bridge." In the Times' pristine news judgment, this non-update to an abstruse transit funding flap merited front page amplification. An investigation into the federal government's most punitive agency's ritual and deliberate targeting of Americans for their political beliefs -- and the intensifying brouhaha over the suspicious disappearance of revelant evidence -- received nary a mention.

RELATED:  Scarborough Goes off on NY Times for Running Christie Story over IRS: ‘This Is a Scam’

Liberal Media Now Officially Referring To Ex-Army Traitor Bradley Manning As "Chelsea"

Despite the heinous crimes he committed and thus, all the lives he put in danger by salaciously releasing classified information to an anti-secrecy group, the liberal media bows down this criminal's request to now be referred to as "Chelsea" because he chooses to dress like a woman (i.e. "transgender rights"). Control the words and you control the debate:

Chelsea Manning, currently serving a thirty-five year sentence for leaking a heap of classified military materials to Wikileaks, penned an op-ed for the New York Times Sunday morning in which she called for greater press access to U.S. military operations, arguing that more transparency would produce a better informed populace and restore confidence in political and military officials. 

“I believe that the current limits on press freedom and excessive government secrecy make it impossible for Americans to grasp fully what is happening in the wars we finance,” she wrote.

Manning, a former intelligence analyst, said she saw in Iraq the wide gulf in the understanding of U.S. military operations enjoyed by intelligence analysts versus that attainable by the public or even lawmakers, both of whom made poor decisions based on incomplete information:

“The more I made these daily comparisons between the news back in the States and the military and diplomatic reports available to me as an analyst, the more aware I became of the disparity. In contrast to the solid, nuanced briefings we created on the ground, the news available to the public was flooded with foggy speculation and simplifications.”

Manning especially critiqued the embedded reporter procedures, which she said all but demanded favorable coverage from the few members of the press who achieved access to it in the first place — not, Manning argued, a coincidence:

“The embedded reporter program, which continues in Afghanistan and wherever the United States sends troops, is deeply informed by the military’s experience of how media coverage shifted public opinion during the Vietnam War. The gatekeepers in public affairs have too much power: Reporters naturally fear having their access terminated, so they tend to avoid controversial reporting that could raise red flags.”

RELATED: VA Fast-Tracks Sex Change for Manning While Vets Die on Waiting Lists

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/18/14

Romney Calls for NH Police Commissioner to Apologize, Resign for Obama Slur

Taser Death Could Get Supreme Court Review

Christians Sin by Putting Kids in Public School

The Pill Kills Families

Catholic Cardinal: Obamacare Regulation ‘Violates God’s Law’

Karl Rove Is Right About Hillary's Health

Suspend Your Reality For Godzilla: It’s An Anti-Global-Warming Alarmism Smash

Sports Illustrated's McCann Lumps Pro-Traditional Marriage Supporters With Actual Criminals
 
10,000 Young Toddlers Are on Stimulant Drugs for ADHD
 
GOP Iraq War Vet Blasts ‘Democratic Hacks’ Who Called Him a ‘Coward’

The God of Liberalism

Kristol on NYT: Liberals Worried About ‘Persecution’ of Someone Making $750K

Angry White Men -- aka Journalists

Townhall.com:

A poll released last week reported that 7 percent of American journalists say they are Republicans. The survey also found that the news force is aging, having a median age of 47. And 62 percent of journalists are men. A mere 8.5 percent of full-timers are minorities. Less than 1 in 4 are "very satisfied" with their job. In short, the profession that dubbed the Republican Party a refuge for "angry white men" is teeming with angry white men. 

The irony here is wasted on the ink-stained-wretch community. 

Indiana University has conducted this survey of more than 1,000 journalists every decade since 1971, so it measures changes in the industry. The 2002 survey reported that 18 percent of journalists identified as Republicans. At 7.1 percent last year, America's newsrooms housed a lower percentage of Republicans than San Francisco (8.4 percent). 

No wonder conservatives don't trust the media. 

Professors Lars Willnat and David Weaver also recorded the lowest showing of journalists who called themselves Democrats since 1971, when it was 35.5 percent. Now 28 percent say they are Democrats; half say they are independent; and 15 percent say they are "other." 

Bernie Goldberg, a former CBS reporter who is now with Fox News, thinks many of the self-identified "independent" journalists are liars who "know better than to tell the truth and tell the pollsters who they really are." I suspect that Goldberg is onto something. Though surveys have found more ideological diversity in newsrooms outside the Beltway, a 1996 Freedom Forum poll of Washington correspondents found that 89 percent said they had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. 

I've known colleagues to be rather defensive on the issue of liberal bias. It couldn't be that like Ivy League faculties, liberal editors tend to hire people who dress, think and vote as they do. No, there must be a more noble reason that liberal journalism self-replicates. 

I've heard it before: Journalists are smarter than other people, so of course they're liberal. (That's right; we're so clever that we work in a shrinking industry.) Or: Liberals are drawn to journalism because they question authority. 

RELATED:  Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans. That’s far fewer than even a decade ago.

The Unbearable Whiteness of Liberal Media

Prospect.org:

On the staff of The American Prospect, I’m the only member of an ethnic minority. That's not because I bring all the variety the magazine needs, or because the editors don't think diversity is valuable. Everyone on the masthead of this liberal publication is committed to being inclusive—not just of racial and ethnic minorities but of women; gays, lesbians, and transgender people; and the poor.

It's not just the Prospect. Journalism upstarts like Vox Media and FiveThirtyEight have come under fire recently for lack of diversity in their hires, but that's largely because they are drawing from the milky-white pool of “existing talent.” In the corner of the publishing industry that caters to college-educated wonks—a slightly fuzzy designation, but I've included most of the publications my colleagues and I read on a daily basis—racial and ethnic diversity is abysmal.

Nearly 40 percent of the country is non-white and/or Hispanic, but the number of minorities at the outlets included in this article's tally—most of them self-identified as liberal or progressive—hovers around 10 percent. The Washington Monthly can boast 20 percent, but that's because it only has nine staffers in total, two of whom belong to minority groups. Dissent, like the Prospect, has one. Given the broad commitment to diversity in our corner of the publishing world, why is the track record so poor?

Corporate America long ago signed on to the idea that diversity—besides being a noble goal in itself—is good for business. Companies with diverse workforces consistently outperform their competitors; diversity drives innovation, and workers tend to be happier at companies that value inclusiveness. But it's even more important in journalism than, say, at an accounting firm. When you're in the business of telling stories, lacking diversity means you're limited in the sorts of stories you can tell—or even think of telling. A newsroom filled with white guys simply lacks the same imagination as one with people from an array of backgrounds. One editor I spoke with stressed that they "choose staff for what they can bring to the magazine, first and foremost," but lacking diversity is actually a prime indicator that you're failing to attract the top talent.
A large part of the problem is simply that no one is keeping track. Unlike the National Association of News Editors, the American Society of Magazine Editors does not track the number of minorities among magazine staff.

Most of the editors I spoke with conceded up front that their record of hiring and retaining people of color was poor, but few knew the number off-hand. Most, however, knew their VIDA score—and remember answering for it. Since it launched in 2009, the organization VIDA: Women in Literary Arts has tallied the number of women on staff and in the pages of literary publications each year, releasing its counts in January. The organization's name-and-shame strategy has been highly successful.

"When VIDA publishes those numbers, it rattles around your head," says Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic. 

 

"When VIDA publishes those numbers, it rattles around your head," says Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic. "It’s a form of shaming I think is actually fairly effective." Foer, who returned to helm the magazine in 2012 after leaving the post in 2010, says after the most recent VIDA count, he and his staff began keeping tabs on the number of male and female bylines in each issue and established a goal they want to reach before next year's numbers come out. Other publications—including the Prospect—have made inroads on the problem after the VIDA counts. "Having analytics and goals and knowing that it’ll just be embarrassing if you don’t do better next year is a pretty strong guarantee that things will be better," Foer says. In my survey, the center-left New Republic scored higher on the racial and ethnic-diversity scale than the rest of its more progressive counterparts save Mother Jones, with 12.5 percent of staff members hailing from minority groups.

RELATED:  The White World of Sports Journalism