What do you think about Human Events?

[conorfriedersdorf]

I'm a writer whose credits include The Atlantic, The American Spectator, the Claremont Institute and Doublethink Online.

I'd be grateful to anyone willing to discuss their opinion, positive or negative, of Human Events. A piece I'm researching requires me to better understand who reads the publication and what conservatives generally think about it.

I can be reached by e-mail at conor.friedersdorf@gmail.com

[Clemenza]

I actually have read your stuff on Zsa Zsa the Greek’s website. My GF is a regular reader.

[stylin_geek]

Anyway, I read Human Events frequently as they do tend to give out pretty solid information. Once in a while I sigh, because I’ll see something that is a bit over the top and wonder why it even showed up.

I noticed a couple of your posts about Barack Obama and it appears you are a fan of his.

Care to discuss why you think he’d make a good president?

[wac3rd]

I like it...8 out of 10...

[Fiji Hill]

Human Events has long been an effective voice for mainstream conservatism. I first encountered the publication in 1969 at of all places, Occidental College, which even at that time was so left-wing that locals called it "Moscow on the hill." My dormitory actually had a subscription to it. Incidentally, the dorm's small library included a copy of McCarthy & His Enemies by William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell (Chicago: Regnery, 1954) and John Stormer's right-wing opus None Dare Call It Treason (Florissant, Mo., Liberty Bell, 1964).

I currently subxcribe to Human Events and own several bound volumes from the 1950's, the early 1960's, and 1972, as well as an anthology of writings published in 1946 entitled A Year of Human Events. Up until 1963, it was published in newsletter form. By 1960, it was becoming thicker, and in 1963 it began coming out in the tabloid format in which it appears today.

During its first year or so as a tabloid, Human Events relentlessly promoted Barry Goldwater for president. Each issue featured editorial cartoons. Among the items published at this time were "A Time For Choosing," Ronald Reagan's speech over national television in behalf of Goldwater, which Human Events printed in its entirety in its November 28, 1964 issue.

Human Events has always been practical in its approach to politics. For decades, it has featured "Races of the Week"--campaigns of interest to conservatives. It has also been more or less ideologically consistent, although its views on issues such as the Middle East--it was cool toward Israel during the 1950's--have significantly changed.

Nonetheless, it has consistently chastized Republicans who stray from the conservative path, be they Eisenhower-era "Modern Republicans" or RINO's of the 21st century. It has also remained cool toward third party movements and has consistently eschewed conspiracy theories.

Although I miss the cartoons of the 1960's, the color photographs and the website that accompanies the print publication are a great improvement. Human Events continues to remain a good source for news in the world of politics.

[Political Junkie Too]

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
-Thomas Jefferson

-PJ

[Eagles6]

Excellent.

[Rockingham]

Human Events is a longtime conservative outlet that predates National Review. Notably, HR is pitched to a less educated audience than National Review. Although the proliferation of conservative outlets has diminished the relative importance of HR, its reporting and its audience still matter.

[backhoe]

I'll refrain from something acerbic or pithy ( for now... )--

It's a good publication.

---

Just an old Keyboard Cowboy...gating back out, into Cyberspace and the -Dreamtime--