June 14, 2026 The Hero System of Human Rights Scholar Amanda Alexander Luke Ford No sacred cows.

The Hero System of Human Rights Scholar Amanda Alexander

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

Ernest Becker (1924-1974), in The Denial of Death, holds that man is the animal who knows he will die and cannot live with the knowledge. Every culture hands him a hero system, a scheme that lets him earn the feeling that he counts beyond his body and outlasts it. Heroism answers the terror of death. Otto Rank (1884-1939), whom Becker follows, names a second terror beneath the first, the terror of life, the dread of standing alone, separate, free, with no large thing to merge into. A man builds against one terror and falls toward the other. The hero system holds him in the middle.

Two terrors govern the field Amanda Alexander works in, and they sit on opposite sides of one wall.

The first belongs to the humanitarian lawyer who tells the story of progress. He looks at the bombed cities and the camps and the mobilized millions of the twentieth century, and he needs the killing to mean something other than the last word on man. So he builds a hero. The civilian becomes a sacred category that humanity discovered. The Geneva Conventions become conscience written down. Law bends toward mercy across the centuries, antiquity to Nuremberg to the Additional Protocols, a rising line. The lawyer who serves that line serves a thing that will outlast him. He fears that man kills without limit and that civilization runs thin over the killing. His hero answers the fear by calling the thin layer the ground.

Alexander carries the opposite dread. She fears the dupe’s fate, the fear of living inside a comforting story and mistaking it for the world, of taking a settlement that power assembled and calling it a moral order the species earned. Her hero is the historian who sees through the story. She earns her standing by refusing the consolation the first man cannot live without.

This is why the two cannot hear each other. The first man’s floor is the second’s abyss. Tell Alexander the progress story and she hears a fairy tale. Tell the progress lawyer that the civilian hardened into a category during the industrial wars and took its modern shape from a political compromise in 1977, that the term surfaced in the 1970s through fights among the Red Cross, the academy, and rival blocs, and he hears the floor give way. Each man’s comfort is the other’s terror. They argue about history. They fight about which terror they can bear.

Her hero runs on a subtraction story. Strip the teleology, strip the talk of universal morality, strip the myth of a tradition running unbroken from the ancients to Geneva, and what remains is the thing underneath: contingency, conflict, bureaucratic adaptation, the imaginative work culture does before treaties catch up. She offers the cleared ground as reality with the superstition removed. The progress story was the bias. Take it away and the history stands plain.

Becker stops her here. The cleared ground is not a clearing. It is another hero system. Disenchantment consoles too. The man who sees through every myth has found his own way to count, and his way is lucidity. He is never the fool. He stands outside the story watching the believers, and that standing-outside is his immortality, his proof that he met the world without flinching. Alexander’s subtraction does not deliver her to bare reality. It delivers her to the place of the one who is not deceived, and that place is a hero’s place like any other. The mutation reads to her as a clearing.

Her sacred values come into focus against the rival. She holds contingency holy. The progress lawyer holds permanence holy. She prizes the courage to historicize the sacred, to show that men made the civilian. He prizes the courage to defend the sacred, to treat the civilian as found, a thing the species uncovered, because a thing men made they can unmake. She reads science fiction and military memoirs and strategic theory beside the treaties, and she shows that culture imagined civilian death long before the law allowed it. He reads the treaties and the case law and the diplomatic record, and he builds the doctrine that keeps the imagining in check. She wants the truth about how law becomes thinkable. He wants the law to keep working as a brake. Both men believe they serve the civilian. She serves him by telling the truth about his origins. He serves him by guarding the story that protects him.

How much of this does she see? Her work shows one kind of awareness and lacks another. She knows the abyss her method opens, and she steps back from it. She declines to call humanitarian law a fraud or a mask for power. She holds a place between doctrine and pure relativism, which means she feels the danger of the cleared ground and refuses to live at the bottom of it. That is honest. What she does not turn on herself is the method she turns on everyone else. She historicizes the believer’s hero and leaves her own alone. The critical historian dissolves every hero system but the one she stands in, the one that scores her a point each time she shows a sacred thing was assembled. Her ledger runs on truth against comfort. It never asks what her own truth comforts.

Three coordinates fall out of this. The shape of her hero is the disenchanter, the one who is not fooled, who earns the right to count by showing the construction behind the doctrine. The rival she fights without naming is the progress lawyer, the keeper of the rising line, and she fights him on every page that shows the line got drawn late and got drawn by interests. The cost her ledger cannot price is the one Becker puts first. The story she dissolves might be doing work. The belief that the civilian is sacred and found, false as it reads to her, might stay a soldier’s hand or a minister’s order in the hour when the contingent version hands him a permission slip. She scores truth. She does not enter the body on the other side of the truth, because her hero system keeps no column for it. A man who needs the story to hold the killing back pays for her clarity, and the bill never reaches her desk.

Becker does not ask her to lie. He asks her to see that the choice of truth over comfort builds a hero like any other, and that the hero, any hero, throws a shadow he prefers not to count. Her work holds because she comes within a step of seeing it. She walks up to her own myth, the myth of the man with no myth, and turns back one step short.

Posted in Amanda Alexander, Human Rights, International Law | Comments Off

Andrew Gelman’s Hero System

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

Andrew Gelman built a heroic life out of refusal. Most men earn their standing by claiming, the bold result, the clean finding, the story that lands. Gelman earns his by declining to claim more than the numbers will bear. His whole authority rests on a discipline that sounds like the opposite of ambition, the insistence on saying only what the data support and stopping there, on the wide interval where others draw the confident line, on the model that might be wrong and the result that might be noise. He made himself the conscience of the empirical sciences by becoming the man who will not oversell, and in a culture that pays for confidence, the refusal to oversell is the rarest thing on the table.

What he built is the garden of forking paths. Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) supplied the image. A scientist gathers his data, looks at it, makes a chain of reasonable choices about what to keep and what to drop and which pattern to chase, and each choice is defensible and the chain together delivers a finding that means nothing, a certainty manufactured in good faith. No fraud. Just a man walking the branching paths in real time, led by the data toward the result the data happened to suggest, calling the arrival knowledge. That is Gelman’s terror, the honest self-deception, the false certainty wearing the face of science. His hero is the man who does not fool himself, and the harder feat folded inside it, the man who builds the tools that would catch him fooling himself and then runs them on his own work.

Here is where he parts from most of his peers. The others reach their authority by subtraction, the claim to have stripped the bias and the faith and the construction away to leave the clean residue, reality with the error removed. Gelman denies there is a clean residue. The whole of his method holds that you never reach the bare truth, you reach a range, a posterior, a model that knows something and not everything. Partial pooling, his signature move, refuses both the lie that all cases are the same and the lie that each stands alone, and settles in the honest middle where the data inform you without delivering you certainty. The wide interval is not timidity. It is the true width of what can be known, drawn to scale. Where the deflators say here is the world with the illusions gone, Gelman says here is the world with the uncertainty kept in the picture, because leaving it out is the deepest illusion of all.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) named the work every man’s creed performs, the holding-off of death through service to something that outlasts him. Gelman’s something is the self-correcting record, the slow public machine by which inquiry catches its own errors and grinds toward truth across the generations. His methods, his students, the norms he pressed on a generation, these go on after him, and the going-on is his answer to the grave. The story his life tells is that science is fragile and precious, that the replication crisis threatened to rot it, and that his criticism defended a thing larger and more lasting than any career. A reductive reader will say the story is a cover, that under the talk of integrity sits the ordinary fear of slipping down the ladder. The reductive reader has not earned the claim. Becker’s point was never that the immortality project masks a baser motive. The project is how the motive lives in an animal that knows it will die. The hunger for significance and the love of the enterprise are not two things, one real and one decorative. They are the same hunger, and to call the nobler name a disguise is to claim a knowledge of another man’s heart that no evidence supplies, which is the one move Gelman spent his life teaching us to distrust.

Sit with that. To deflate Gelman, to announce that his integrity is status anxiety dressed for church, is to do the exact thing his whole career condemns. It is a finding with no power behind it, a confident story reverse-engineered from a man’s success, the garden of forking paths run on a biography instead of a dataset. You can always find the path that makes the honest man look like a careerist, the way you can always find the subgroup that turns the null result significant. Gelman taught the field to ask what we would believe if the study had come out the other way. Ask it here. Had the disintermediation never come, had his kind of science kept its grip on public belief, no one would read his integrity as a cover for status fear, because there would be no falling status to explain it by. The deflation depends on the outcome it pretends to diagnose. By his own time-reversal test it fails. The honest reading grants him the uncertainty he granted the world and takes the man at his word until the evidence says otherwise, and the evidence does not.

The cost is real, and he sees it more clearly than any critic could. He won the war he fought. Inside the academy the reforms took, the pre-registration and the open data and the death of the lonely underpowered study waved through on a lucky p-value. And the victory arrived as the ground gave way beneath it. The bridge from rigorous research to public belief, the science journalism and the popularizers and the lectures that once carried findings from the lab to the living room, gives way, and into the gap pour the direct-to-audience health influencers who need no credential and answer to no review, whose authority is reach and warmth and the parasocial trust of millions. Gelman perfected the instrument and the concert hall emptied. He is right inside a house whose writ no longer runs where most people form their beliefs. His March reply names this without flinching, the reform of the science and the ruin of the channel that made the science count, and a lesser man would have told himself a happier story.

A quieter cost sits beneath that one. The discipline that forbids overclaiming forbids the verdict too, the meaning, the thing a frightened public wants. A man deciding how to live, whether to fear the diagnosis or take the supplement or trust the shot, comes to Gelman and receives a probability interval and a warning that the study was underpowered, which is the truth and is not the bread he came for. The influencer hands him certainty and a plan. Gelman hands him the honest width of the unknown. The honest width is worth more and feels like less, and in a market for feeling, the man who sells the truth about uncertainty is selling the one thing the frightened animal is built to refuse.

The others in this gallery have a blind spot they cannot find. Gelman is the strange case who sees nearly the whole board, the square his own king stands on included. He runs the skepticism on himself, corrects his own old work, names the obsolescence creeping toward his method without dressing it as another man’s fault. The cut is not that he fails to see. The cut is that seeing does not save him. Rigor cannot manufacture the public trust that rigor once earned, and the virtue that built the bridge holds no tool to rebuild it after the culture stops prizing the virtue. He can describe the washing-out of the road with perfect accuracy. He cannot pave it with description.

So the figure stands, the honest accountant of what can be known, the man who made restraint heroic in a field that rewards the confident lie, and who turned his skepticism on himself when the others turned theirs only outward. His hero is the un-self-deceived inquirer. His immortality is the self-correcting record. He is doing the most honest work in the building. The building empties. He keeps the books straight anyway, which is either the last virtue or the first one, and is in any case the only one he was ever willing to claim.

Posted in Andrew Gelman | Comments Off

The Internet’s Most Notorious Antisemite Walks into… Lakewood (The Lucas Gage story)

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off

The Hero System of Professor Aaron W. Hughes

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

Aaron Hughes makes his living by subtraction. He takes a tradition that calls itself ancient and shows it modern, a continuity that calls itself natural and shows it built, an identity that calls itself given and shows it made. The three faiths gathered under the Abrahamic name, the unbroken line from biblical to rabbinic Judaism, the seamless Islam the apologists guard, each dissolves under his hand into a thing assembled by particular men for particular ends. He is the field’s great deflator.

Every scheme a man uses to feel he counts and to hold death off looks, from inside it, like plain reality. That is the center of what Ernest Becker (1924-1974) saw, and it is the trap laid for a man like Hughes, whose scheme is the one that claims to be no scheme at all, the clean removal of everyone else’s. His hero is the man who cannot be fooled. His terror, under all the method, is credulity, the dread of the dupe who never knows he has been taken. He beats that terror by becoming the one who sees through, never taken in, keeping the cold distance the believers cannot keep. And the apparatus he built to deflate every faith holds no tool to deflate the faith in deflation. The machine does not turn on the machine. So the man most afraid of being fooled stays fooled in the single place his life forbids him to look, where his own creed sits in the clothes of method, calling itself the residue that remains once the illusions burn away.

Give him his due, and the due is large. The constructions are constructed. The Abrahamic family is a modern ecumenical invention that reads its twentieth-century usefulness back into antiquity, and Hughes is right that it survives because it serves interfaith conferences and diplomatic need rather than because it tracks the past. Jewish identity is made and remade, not handed down entire from Sinai. Islamic studies does shelter its object behind a protectiveness no historian would grant Rome or the Tudors, and the scholar who says so out loud pays for it, attacked as an orientalist for asking of Islam what every historian asks of everything. Hughes pays that price and keeps writing. The courage is not a pose. He has built a body of work that says the unwelcome true thing, and a field that flattered its objects is the more honest for his presence in it. Where he sees through, he sees clearly.

His creed is the subtraction story carried to its limit. The editors and reporters who claim a view from nowhere strain out their bias as a side effect of the work. For Hughes the straining is the work. Deflation is the whole operation, the removal of the construction to leave the residue, so his claim to stand on nothing but cleared ground runs deeper than theirs ever does. He does not say he has rinsed the bias from his reporting. He says there is no cathedral, only scaffolding that men mistook for stone, and his task is to name the scaffolding. The trouble hides in the word residue. When you strip a tradition of everything its believers take it to be, something stays in your hand, and Hughes treats what stays, the dated record, the documented construction, the sociology of the category, as reality, as the thing the illusion hid. The residue is not the world with the error removed. It is the world as one method renders it, the method that registers what is built and time-bound and situated. The deflator mistakes the reach of his instrument for the shape of the real.

That is where the believer meets him. Yes, says the thoughtful man inside the tradition, the category is built, the continuity is curated, the line to Sinai runs through human hands. And then. Everything that holds a human life is built and time-bound and made by hands, the marriage and the nation and the language and the love, and you have told me the cathedral is scaffolding without telling me why men kneel in it and weep. Hughes can show that the Day of Atonement liturgy was assembled over centuries from scattered sources. He cannot reach what moves in a man when the congregation sings Kol Nidre and the gates close. Charles Taylor (b. 1931) spent a long book on the experience the deflator brackets, the felt change in what it is to believe, and the scholars of lived religion build their work on the sensory and mortal weight of practice that the sociology of the category steps over. Their charge is not that Hughes is wrong about the construction. It is that he has explained the building and missed the prayer, and that a study of religion unable to see why billions arrange their dying around these things has subtracted the phenomenon along with the error.

Watch, too, where the tools go quiet, because the silence has a pattern. Hughes turns the full apparatus on Islamic apologetics and pays in hostility, and the cost buys him the standing of the critic who tells the unpopular truth. He turns it on Jewish continuity and dissolves the claim that rabbinic Judaism is the natural flowering of the Bible. But the chair he sits in is a chair in Judaic studies, endowed and sustained by a community whose central story his method unmakes, and the same hand that takes the continuity apart edits the series that keeps the philosophy shelved, so the heroism of deflation and the income of preservation arrive together from sources that do not agree. And one object the apparatus leaves alone. The cultural memory of the Holocaust could be read as a construction like the others, assembled, deployed, serving present need, and his tools could say so. They do not. The restraint may be decency, and the scale and the living survivors make decency the likeliest reading. It is also true that this is the one deflation that would cost him the ground he stands on, and his own method, turned on anyone else, would not let the convenient silence pass without asking which it was. On himself it never asks.

Here his self-awareness runs backward. Most men see least about the rival across the field and something about themselves. Hughes is the reverse. No one alive is sharper at finding the unexamined faith in another scholar’s work, the place where erudition shades into devotion, the apologetic hiding in the footnote. The whole gift points outward. It cannot be aimed home, because aiming it home is the one operation that would deflate the deflator, and a hero system does not hand its bearer the tool to take the hero apart. He examines every construction but his own with a rigor that goes dark the instant the light would fall on the lamp.

This reading deflates Hughes, and the move that deflates him deflates the one making it, and Becker’s frame, turned on Becker, is a hero system too, a scheme for the significance of the man who sees through schemes. The knife cuts every hand that lifts it, mine as much as his.

Hughes claims for himself the one thing he denies to every believer he studies, a standpoint that is not a standpoint, a seeing with no faith inside it, the residue mistaken for the real. The honest deflator would grant that deflation too is a creed, with its own sacred method and its own quiet dread, and would keep deflating anyway, having surrendered the last illusion, the illusion of standing nowhere.

Posted in Aaron W. Hughes | Comments Off

Philosopher Michael Huemer & The Credit of Appearances

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

Michael Huemer (b. December 27, 1969) is an American philosopher who has taught at the University of Colorado Boulder since 1998. His writing crosses epistemology, ethics, metaethics, political philosophy, metaphysics, and the philosophy of mathematics. He has authored or co-authored about a dozen books and more than eighty academic articles. Within analytic philosophy he holds a position few others manage to hold at once. Colleagues treat him as a serious contributor to mainstream debates in epistemology and metaethics, and at the same time he defends a list of conclusions that most of the profession regards as eccentric: philosophical anarchism, libertarian free will, substance dualism, and an argument for survival after death. One commitment runs under all of it. Huemer holds that ordinary appearances and common-sense judgments deserve a presumption of credibility, and that the burden falls on anyone who wants to overturn them.

He took his bachelor’s degree at the University of California, Berkeley in 1992 and his doctorate at Rutgers University in 1998, where Peter D. Klein (b. 1940) supervised his dissertation. Klein built his own reputation on skepticism and the theory of knowledge, and a student who would spend a career answering the skeptic learned the problem from a man who took it seriously. Huemer went to Boulder the same year he finished and has stayed there for his whole career, rising to full professor. His prose marks him out among academic philosophers. Much technical philosophy buries its claims under specialist vocabulary. Huemer writes to be understood, and he treats the plain statement of a hard idea as a test the idea has to pass.

His first book, Skepticism and the Veil of Perception (2001), set the themes that would organize the work to come. It attacks indirect realism, the view that a person perceives only inner mental representations and never the outer world. Huemer argues for direct realism, the claim that ordinary perception puts us in contact with external objects rather than with mental stand-ins for them. Skepticism draws its strength, he argues, from standards of proof no belief could meet and from a refusal to count ordinary experience as evidence. The burden sits with the skeptic who wants to unseat perception, not with the man who trusts it.

The center of his epistemology is phenomenal conservatism. On this view, if it seems to a man that something is true, that seeming gives him at least some justification for believing it, unless other evidence defeats the seeming. Huemer uses “seeming” in a technical sense. A seeming is neither a belief nor a desire. A stick held in water may seem bent to a man who knows it is straight. A mathematical claim may seem self-evident before anyone proves it. A moral judgment may seem correct before anyone turns it into a theory. These appearances, Huemer argues, are the ground floor of justification. Every argument rests at last on premises that seem true, so a wholesale rejection of seemings would take down science, logic, and reasoning along with morality and common sense.

That framework reached full form in Ethical Intuitionism (2005), the book that made his name among moral philosophers. It defends moral realism against relativism, non-cognitivism, and error theory. Huemer argues that a man can know some moral truths through rational intuition, in the way he can know some mathematical truths through insight. He sees that gratuitous cruelty is wrong as he sees that two plus two makes four, without an experiment. Morality, on this account, is no social construction and no report of private taste. Huemer grants that intuition can be warped by culture, ideology, emotion, or self-interest, and so the work of moral philosophy is to sort the intuitions that survive scrutiny from the ones that fail it.

His political philosophy grows from the same root. The Problem of Political Authority (2013) challenges the assumption that a government holds a moral standing no private person holds. The book takes apart social contract theory, the appeal to democratic consent, and consequentialist defenses of the state. Huemer works by a test of moral parity. He asks again and again whether an act we accept from a government would count as legitimate from a private individual. If a neighbor may not take your money by force to fund a project he likes, why may the state? If private coercion is wrong as a rule, what licenses state coercion? No account of authority, Huemer concludes, has earned the state its exemption from ordinary morality. The book made him a leading defender of philosophical anarchism, and it became his best-known work outside the academy even as his epistemology and metaethics drew more citations within it.

Huemer parts from many libertarian writers in his starting point. He rests his politics less on natural rights, market efficiency, or constitutional history than on plain moral judgment, and he asks that political institutions answer to the standards we apply to ordinary conduct between persons. Admirers praise the clarity and the consistency. Critics answer that the parity test flattens the problems of collective action and political order, that a state is not a large person and cannot be judged as one. Even many of the critics treat the book as a reference point they have to address.

Huemer has carried the same reasoning past questions of government. Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism (2019) argues that industrial animal agriculture causes suffering on a scale no ordinary benefit can justify. He casts the book as a dialogue to bring the argument into public reach. His own position, sometimes called ostroveganism, permits eating simple organisms such as oysters and scallops that lack the nervous systems for conscious suffering, while it condemns most conventional meat.

Questions of justice and state force return in Justice Before the Law (2021), which he wrote on sabbatical in New Orleans. He examines criminal punishment, plea bargaining, the price of legal services, and legal equality through the same plain moral principles. Governments, he argues, claim permissions that would count as grave wrongs from a private hand. He presses the case that judges, prosecutors, jurors, and lawyers should put justice ahead of the law, and should refuse to enforce an unjust statute or impose a sentence out of all proportion to the offense. His case for far freer immigration flows from the same regard for non-harm and voluntary dealing that anchors the rest of his politics.

Away from ethics and politics, Huemer has given long attention to paradox, infinity, and the foundations of mathematics. Approaching Infinity (2016) takes up the puzzles that gather around infinite quantities and works through classical paradoxes of time, space, and number. He declines to treat infinity as a plain feature of the physical world, sorts its different forms, and traces what each form means for metaphysics and cosmology. Paradox Lost (2018) widens the survey to a range of philosophical paradoxes and the errors of reasoning that breed them.

Huemer has also turned into a sharp critic of academic culture. Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy (2021) joins an introduction to the field with an argument for plain speech. Many philosophical quarrels, he holds, grow murky through technical language and a competition for status dressed as rigor. He calls a good deal of it academic high-status babble, and he insists that a philosophical idea should go into ordinary words whenever it can. The conviction reaches past style. Real understanding, on his view, should make a thing simpler.

His work on political disagreement asks why intelligent people split so far apart on politics. Huemer argues that political belief answers to social incentives, group loyalty, and identity more than to evidence. The private cost of a mistaken political belief is low, and the social cost of dissent can be high, so men adopt the views that secure their standing in a group. The same skepticism toward ideological certainty leads him to press the left and the right by turns, and it keeps him hard to file on a single side.

In metaphysics and the philosophy of mind he holds several positions that sit outside the mainstream. He has shown sympathy for substance dualism, the view that consciousness does not reduce to physical process. He defends a libertarian account of free will against determinism, a stance he carried into a public debate with the neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky (b. 1957). He has explored arguments for survival after death. In his paper “Existence Is Evidence of Immortality” he argues that certain assumptions about infinite time carry surprising consequences for personal existence and reincarnation. The arguments remain contested. They show a man willing to follow his premises to conclusions the profession resists, when he judges the premises sound.

Huemer belongs to the line of common-sense philosophers that runs through Thomas Reid (1710-1796) and, to a lesser degree, G. E. Moore (1873-1958). With Reid he holds that ordinary belief carries a default credit. With Moore he holds that many skeptical arguments are less sure than the common-sense claims they attack, so that a man does better to hold onto his conviction that he has hands than to give it up on the strength of an argument he cannot fully answer. The stance sets him apart from philosophers who try to rebuild knowledge from abstract first principles. Huemer starts from the way things look and asks what reason there might be to leave that starting point.

Outside the university Huemer has built a wide public following. Through his Substack newsletter Fake Noûs, which carries more than fourteen thousand subscribers, along with podcasts, debates, interviews, and essays, he reaches readers well past the academy. The public writing shows the marks of the scholarly work: clarity, independence, and an appetite for testing fashionable claims. Whether the subject is morality, politics, consciousness, diet, or skepticism, he looks for the belief that seems most obvious on reflection and then asks whether any theory has given sufficient ground to drop it.

Huemer stays hard to classify. He is a moral realist in a skeptical age, a defender of intuition in a profession wary of it, a philosophical anarchist who rests his politics on ordinary morality, and a common-sense philosopher who defends uncommon conclusions. Admirers count him among the clearest and most rigorous defenders of common-sense reasoning now writing. Critics charge that he leans too hard on intuition and gives too little weight to history and social complexity. Both camps tend to grant that he holds a distinct place in contemporary analytic philosophy.

The unity in the work lies in his conviction about where inquiry starts. Perception, morality, political authority, mathematical truth, consciousness: across all of them Huemer returns to the thought that the way things seem gives reason its first footing. Philosophy, on his account, should not open by distrusting ordinary experience. It should open there and leave only when the evidence requires.

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off

The Hero System of Professor David N. Myers

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

His teacher stood in the rubble and called it final. Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (1932-2009) argued in Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory that modern critical history broke the link between the Jewish people and its past, that the archive replaced the living memory carried by liturgy and ritual and communal practice, and that no better scholarship could mend the break. Something was severed. The historian stands among the pieces and cannot put them back. David Myers (b. 1960) takes his doctorate under that man, absorbs the argument to the bone, and spends the next forty years trying to prove him wrong, most directly in The Stakes of History. His hero is the physician of memory, the scholar who reaches into the wound the teacher called fatal and works to heal it.

Understand what is at stake, and the frame opens. Jewish memory is a machine for defeating death. The people outlives every empire that buried it because each generation receives the past as its own, remembers the exodus as if it stood at the sea, carries the dead forward as the living. Remember, the command runs, and the remembering is how a people refuses to end. Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gave the name for what such a scheme does, the work of holding death off and making a life count, and Jewish memory is among the oldest and strongest of them. Myers builds his own significance on top of that one. If the chain can be reforged through the critical history that seemed to break it, then the people survives the modern acid, and Myers is the man who saved the link. His permanence rides on the people’s permanence. The thing he cannot bear is the suspicion under everything he writes, that the scholarship he loves is the solvent and not the cure.

He carries a subtraction story, though a quiet one, fitted to a man who spends his life refusing the easy subtractions. He will not strip the criticism out of the scholarship to make it serve the tribe, which is propaganda, and he will not strip the commitment out to make it pure, which is the detached scholar’s sterility. He wants the middle, criticism and commitment at once, and he is honest about how hard the middle is to hold. But one subtraction runs under the honesty. The Judaism Myers serves is Judaism with the parochial removed, the chosenness read as ethics rather than exclusion, the sovereignty held at arm’s length, the boundary lowered, the tribe opened into a dialogue. He offers this as the morally serious core, the tradition clarified, Judaism once the chauvinism burns off. And he reads it as the capacious middle, the generous ground where all the positions meet. The man outside his circle reads it otherwise, as one party’s creed that has named itself the middle, the liberal diaspora Jew’s hero system wearing the robes of the whole.

Watch his sacred words change meaning as they cross from his world into others.

Memory. To Myers memory is a usable past, reforged by the careful historian, a link a scholar can mend with an archive and an argument. To the Hasid of Kiryas Joel, the community Myers studied with his wife and found to be no relic but a hyper-modern user of American law, memory is nothing a book can carry. Memory is the boy in the cheder, the marriage arranged inside the boundary, the day lived under the commandments, the next generation formed before it can choose. The Hasid transmits memory by making Jews who will make Jews. Myers transmits books that circulate among Jews already made. To the Hasid the engaged historian is not mending the chain. He is the rupture Yerushalmi named, dressed now as the repair.

Continuity. Myers means an open and interpretive thing, the past rejoined to the present by reading and dialogue. The sovereigntist, the heir of the men who built a state because memory and prayer did not stop the trains, means something with an army behind it. Continuity is the Jewish state that survives its enemies, and survival runs through power and closure and the willingness to choose your own side without apology. To this hero Myers’s open continuity is the diaspora dream that history already drowned, and his recovered Simon Rawidowicz (1896-1957), the thinker who imagined coexistence and binational arrangement instead of sovereign closure, is a beautiful corpse Myers keeps trying to revive.

Both sides. This is his deepest reflex, the symmetry he reaches for by instinct, the massacre all must condemn and the humanitarian catastrophe all must oppose, held in one hand. He builds his arguments as balanced pairs and calls the balance moral clarity. The sovereigntist calls it moral evasion. In a war he reads as a war for survival, the demand to weigh your own dead against the enemy’s is a demand to disarm, and the man safe in Los Angeles who asks both peoples to mourn together is performing a generosity his security pays for. Myers hears conscience. The other hero hears the luxury of distance.

Dialogue, pluralism, reconciliation, the dignity of all human life. He names these without irony, founds institutes on them, closes even his darkest essay on the vigil and the better angels. To the Hasid each is a solvent. Dialogue across difference is the open door the children walk out of. Pluralism is the acid that thins the boundary until the community cannot hold. The dignity of all human life is true and stands second to the covenant. Reconciliation is the whistle of a man walking past his own graveyard. The optimism Myers wears as a virtue, the refusal to close on despair, reads from inside the transmitting community as the cheer of a branch that does not notice how few of its children remain on the tree.

The cruelty in his story is that he studied the answer and could not use it. He and his wife went into Kiryas Joel expecting a fossil and found a hyper-modern machine, a community that worked the liberal order’s own tools, zoning and incorporation and the vote, to wall off a space where memory transmits the old way, through bodies and boundaries and births. He admired the cunning and missed the verdict it passed on his life’s work. The Hasidim transmit and multiply. The liberal Jewish public he serves reads, agrees, and does not reliably hand the thing to its children. He devoted himself to reforging the chain and serves the branch whose chain thins, while the branch whose chain holds is the one his whole pluralist faith is built to oppose. His medicine heals the patient least able to swallow it, and the patient thriving without it is the one he cannot join.

He sees more of this than almost anyone in his position, and the seeing is the honorable core of him. He knows applied history slides toward advocacy and says so against his own institutes. He keeps the Yerushalmi wound open as a wound rather than filing it under settled provocations the field has outgrown. He told the teacher to his face, while the teacher lived, that the teacher had quit too early, and the teacher disagreed, sharply, and Myers honored him anyway, which is how inheritance works when it works. What he cannot quite see sits at the one place his courage cannot reach, the gap between feeding a readership and forming a generation. He believes he does the work of memory. He curates the self-understanding of the already-convinced, and the difference is the difference between a people that continues and a literature about continuity.

So the figure stands clear, the student who refused his teacher’s despair, the physician of memory who spent forty years arguing that the archive can heal what the archive helped break. The courage is real and rare. He kept alive as a living problem what the field embalmed as a classic, and he made his failure visible by the plain act of trying, which the cautious never do. The cost is folded into the cure. He can compound the medicine, can write the usable past with a specialist’s rigor and a moralist’s warmth, and he cannot make the patient’s children take it, because the thing that makes them take it is the boundary and the commandment and the formed life he spent his career holding at arm’s length in the name of the open and the plural. He is a healer who loves the patient and cannot give him the one thing that would let him live, since the one thing is the closure the healer’s whole faith forbids.

Posted in David N. Myers | Comments Off

Maggie Haberman’s Hero System

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

The man who calls her a third-rate reporter calls her, and the two facts are one fact. Maggie Haberman (b. 1973) builds the most consequential franchise in modern political journalism on a single transaction. She takes the call. She pulls what is useful from it, discounts the spin, and comes back the next day for the next call. Donald Trump (b. 1946) attacks her by name and hands her the access he hands no one, leaks to her and complains to her and reads her more closely than he reads his own staff, because each of them needs the other to be who they are. Her dread is not his. Her dread is the dead phone, the call that goes to a rival, the door that shuts, the room she is no longer in. Everything she does, she does to keep the line open.

That is a hero system, in Ernest Becker‘s (1924-1974) sense, a way of earning significance and holding death off, and hers runs against the grain of the creeds her editors keep. They worship the verified fact with the reporter’s hand wiped off it. She worships proximity. To be the one they call, to know what the principals think before the principals say it, to stand so close to power that the record of power cannot be written without her, that is the whole of it. Her bid for permanence is the chronicle, and the chronicle is welded to its subject. The history of the Trump years will rest, more than on any other reporter, on what she saw and heard and pried loose, which means her name lasts because his does. She found her immortality in a man.

She learns the trade in a war. The New York Post of the late nineties fights the Daily News for the city block by block, and the combat teaches reporting that runs on relationships rather than documents. The players, Trump and Giuliani (b. 1944) and the rest, understand the city’s media economy and work it without shame, feeding items, planting stories on rivals, calling to flatter or threaten. The young reporter learns to take the call, bank the useful part, throw out the rest, and protect the source for tomorrow. She covers City Hall and absorbs a picture of politics as a contest among hungry personalities for attention and leverage and survival, with policy along for the ride. She does not have to reach far for this picture. Her father spends his career at The New York Times, her mother works for the publicist whose clients include the city’s loudest self-promoters, Trump among them, and she grows up inside the wiring that joins the press to the flacks to the famous. The world she covers is the world she was born in.

Here is where her creed parts from her editors’. The men above her sell a view from nowhere, fact with the standpoint strained out. Haberman sells something more honest and more dangerous, a view from the inside. She does not claim to stand above the players. She claims to sit among them and bring back what they say, spin discounted, self-interest filtered, the real calculation laid bare. Take the call and discount the spin. That is the promise, and it carries its own quiet subtraction, the belief that a reporter can strain the teller’s motive out of the tell while depending on the teller to keep telling. The sources talk for reasons of their own, to knife a rival, to place themselves, to plant an argument in the paper the president reads at dawn. Her stories map the palace wars as no one else maps them, and the map is drawn by the combatants. She knows this. The danger is not that she misses it. The danger is that the line must stay open, and a line you cannot afford to cut bends the hand that writes. The most damaging detail keeps for the next story, or the book. The framing stays survivable for the man who will pick up tomorrow.

The deepest thing about her is not a rival across a field. It is a partner across a phone. Trump runs on the promoter’s faith that attention is worth, that publicity is the currency that settles all accounts, the same faith the New York she came up in ran on. They are two practitioners of one creed, which is why she reads him when the policy press cannot. The Washington reporters trained on platforms and consultants meet him in 2015 and see a stunt. She meets a man she has watched for twenty years, working the national stage with the tools he used to own the tabloids, and she treats him as real when the rest treat him as a joke. The fit is exact, and it is a trap with two doors. He wants her coverage because the Times confers a legitimacy his own outlets cannot. She wants his access because it yields journalism no one else can file. He is her weapon and her prize. She is his. Each feeds the other’s hunger for permanence, neither can quit the exchange, and the country reads the result and calls it the news.

Two heroes reject the bargain.

The first is the journalist as alarm, the reporter who holds that some subjects forbid the cool transactional eye, that a man who tells crowds he might not leave office is not a palace-intrigue story but a fire, and that to cover him as who-is-up-who-is-down is to file dispatches on the weather of an emergency. To this hero Haberman’s great gift, making Trump legible, is the original sin, because the legible reads as the normal, and the normalizing of the thing was the thing to fight. Her readability soothed where alarm was owed. She answers that she exposed more of him than any crusader ever would have, that the public knew his conduct because she pried it loose, and the answer is strong and does not close the wound, because both halves hold at once.

The second is the populist she is supposed to be the enemy of, and here the picture turns strange. By every marker she is the establishment he runs against, the Times man’s daughter and the publicist’s daughter, raised in the wiring of elite Manhattan media, credentialed and connected past any heartland reporter’s reach. Yet she is the one in the enemy camp who saw their man plainly, took him seriously, understood where he came from and what he was doing. The populist regards her with a divided eye, the elite scribe who alone among the elite got it. Then the eye settles, because he watches what she did with the seeing. She turned the man into a franchise. She built a career and a bestseller and a cable chair on him, made him content, the lead character in the Manhattan attention economy that pays her. Her understanding was never sympathy. It was extraction, the tabloid art at presidential scale, and the populist’s champion became the elite’s most profitable product.

She sees more of her own position than her detractors grant. She names the access problem and argues the other side of it with force, that the relationships surfaced what the record needed, that a reporter who would not take the call would have nothing to report. What she cannot quite see is the shape of her own lens. The tabloid eye that fit Trump so exactly, individuals over institutions, incentives over ideas, the eternal who-leaked and who-benefits, is the eye that renders every rupture as one more turn of the old New York wheel, and an eye built for that wheel cannot catch the thing that does not turn on it, the chance that this was not power as Manhattan practices it but something her lens was never ground to see. The fit is the gift and the blindness together. When the revelations she holds surface in Confidence Man rather than in the paper, the same logic shows its hand. The reporting matures on the relationship’s clock, not the public’s, because the relationship is the asset and the asset must last.

So it closes where it opened, on the call. Haberman’s significance is access, her permanence is the chronicle, and both are bolted to a single man, her triumph and her limit in one. She gives the age the fullest record it has of the figure at its center, and she draws it with a hand that needed him to keep talking, so the portrait runs deep and the frame holds fixed, set at the angle of the open phone. The historians will lean on her because no one stood closer. They will also have to remember that standing that close is a position and not the absence of one, and that the price of the call she could not afford to lose is folded into every line it bought.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off

Jonathan Swan’s Hero System

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

In the Australian party room a prime minister can be finished by Thursday. The numbers move in a corridor, a faction shifts, the caucus votes, and the man who led the country at breakfast clears his desk by dark. Jonathan Swan (b. 1985) learns his trade in the gallery that reads those corridors, through the years the two big parties knife three sitting prime ministers between them, and the lesson sets in the bone. Formal institutions describe politics. Informal networks conduct it. Power is the arithmetic of who holds the votes in the room, and the reporter’s work is to count the room before the press conference that pretends no counting took place.

He carries the arithmetic to Washington and it makes him. He lands in 2014 on a congressional fellowship, apprentices inside the institution, and then watches the American press corps fail to read its own subject. The reporters trained on platforms and consultants see Trump (b. 1946) as a circus, a man, a spectacle. Swan sees a party room. The operation that others call chaos he treats as any caucus, a set of factions with competing interests and a tally to be taken, and he reports it by doing what a gallery man does, working every camp, owing none of them, reconstructing the fight from all sides so that no single faction can hand him the story. The method crosses the ocean intact, because power runs on the same machinery in both capitals. Only the accents change.

This makes him a hero the country he conquers does not know how to read. The American reporter of the first rank tends to carry a civic religion. He guards the Fourth Estate, serves democracy, holds the press a sacred trust named in the Constitution, and the mission gives his work its weight. Swan carries no such faith. He is a tradesman among missionaries, formed in a trade culture that treats journalism as a craft and not a calling, and his significance comes from the craft and nothing above it. Find out what powerful people work to hide. Check it. Publish it first. The man who possesses the information others lack and verifies it and gets it into print before the rest has done the whole job, and the job needs no steeple over it. What he reaches for, in the only terms a man finally reaches for anything, is the standing of the one who got it right and the record that outlasts him, the reconstruction so well sourced that the history cannot be written around it. He builds his permanence out of accuracy, not mission. Becker would call it a hero system like any other. It simply keeps its faith in the tools.

The posture is inherited. His father, Norman Swan (b. 1953), becomes Australia’s best known medical broadcaster by translating the specialists for everyone and by challenging medical authority whenever the evidence demands it. The son takes the same stance and turns it from doctors to politicians. Challenge the powerful with the evidence. Do not let the claim stand when the numbers say otherwise. The whole of his most famous hour runs on that single inherited reflex.

In 2020 he sits across from the president with the preparation of a print reporter and the patience of a man taking a deposition. Trump shuffles his printed charts to show the country doing well on deaths as a share of cases, and Swan moves him to deaths as a share of population, where the American record turns grim, and declines to let the better-sounding number stand. The president says the dead are what they are. Swan’s face does the rest, disbelief in real time, and the clip travels the world. The country reads it as a man speaking truth to power. Beneath the drama it is a tradesman checking a figure, the son of the doctor who refused the authority’s word for the data.

Here is his version of the move every reporter at this height makes, the claim to give you reality with the reporter strained out. Swan does not strain out his bias by pretending to no standpoint. He strains out his verdict. He renders no judgment, foregrounds no opinion, forgoes the essayist’s synthesis, and lays before you only the room, who was in it, who said what, who won, who lost, reconstructed and checked. That is the craftsman’s subtraction, the world reduced to verified event with the meaning left for the reader to supply. It buys a rare and real knowledge, the granular truth of what happened, and it pays for that knowledge by giving up another. The man who will name only what happened in the room cannot name what the room was for. When his great reconstruction of the administration’s last weeks lays out the schemes and the confrontations and the officials shoved aside, it tells you everything about the fight and withholds the one thing an essayist would risk, the verdict on what the fight was. He calls that discipline. His critics call it evasion. Both are right, because the discipline and the evasion are the same refusal.

The refusal makes two enemies, and a third condition he was born into.

His American peers, the missionaries, do not quite trust a man who will not profess. They prize the craft and use his scoops, but the reporter who serves no creed above the trade unsettles a press that has come to understand itself as democracy’s guard, and in an age that asks every journalist which side he is on, the tradesman who answers only the craft looks evasive or worse to the believers in his own building.

The moralist presses harder. The times are not normal, he says, and a method built to treat all power as the same factional arithmetic flattens an emergency into one more org-chart fight, and the cross-examiner who pins the death figure and renders no verdict on the man has done half a job and called it the whole. Swan answers, fairly, that the verdict was never his to give, that his readers can judge once he has told them truly what occurred, and the answer holds and does not satisfy, because some readers want the teller to say what the telling means.

The deepest objection comes from the believer Swan reports, the trad and the nationalist who reads his movement as a faith and finds himself written up as a flowchart. To this man Swan is a brilliant mechanic who has mistaken the engine for the car. He maps the factions and counts the votes and reconstructs the personnel fight, and he misses that the thing in the country is not a faction doing the numbers but a people in revolt, a hunger the party room cannot hold, and the gallery method that reads every movement as machinery goes blind before the one force that has no room to be reported from. The Australian craftsman, deaf to the American civic religion of the press, is deaf in the same key to the religion of the movement. He believes everything important happens in a room and can be reconstructed by the men who were in it. Some things happen in no room.

He knows the access charge and meets it well, that the sources who talk to him have humbled themselves in his copy as often as they have used it, that a reporter who would not cultivate them would have nothing to report. The thing he cannot see is the edge of the room. His method assumes that power is always identifiable people pursuing identifiable interests inside structures that reward and punish, and the assumption is true often enough to make him the best in the trade and false exactly where the trade fails, at the movement, the mood, the faith, the wave that no faction conducts and no source can explain, because the people inside it do not live it as a fight among interests. He can reconstruct any room. He cannot report the weather outside it.

So the man comes clear, the gallery reporter who carried the party-room arithmetic across an ocean and proved it reads any capital, the tradesman who kept his faith in the craft while the country around him made a religion of the press and a counter-religion of the revolt against it. His gift is the reconstructed room, sourced from every faction, owned by none, verified and first. His blindness is the conviction that the room is where the world gets decided. And the cost folded into his refusal to judge is that the meaning of the event, the one thing many readers cannot supply for themselves, is the thing his craft hands back unspoken, a door held open onto a room reported in full and never read for what it was.

Posted in Australia, Journalism | Comments Off

Dean Baquet’s Hero System

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

Dean Baquet (b. 1956) rises from a Creole restaurant family in the Tremé to the top of the most powerful newsroom in the country, without a college degree, on reporting talent and a hard institutional sense. He carries two heroes into that chair, and the years he runs the place keep forcing the two to fight. One is the accountability man, the digger who exposes what power hides and defends the reporting against the spreadsheet. The other is the witness from the Tremé, the first Black editor of a paper whose old neutrality wrote his own people as a footnote. Most of his troubles, and most of his achievement, come from holding both at once.

Name the frame. Ernest Becker (1924-1974) called a culture’s scheme for earning significance a hero system, the account of what makes a life worth living and a death bearable, the faith that sorts the worthy from the wasted. Baquet’s faith is the institution and the work it produces, the verified exposure that changes the world and the great paper that carries it past any one man. His significance comes from the record, from documenting Chicago’s crooked council and Harvey Weinstein’s abuse (b. 1952) and Donald Trump‘s (b. 1946) tax returns. His immortality is the paper, larger and richer when he leaves it than when he arrived, and the investigative tradition he hands on. Near the end he turns to the dying local newsrooms and tries to keep their reporting alive, the keeper of a flame against the dark.

His first terror takes shape in Los Angeles. He runs the Los Angeles Times there, gathers prizes, and when the corporate owner demands cut after cut he refuses in public and loses the job for it. The lesson sets hard. The enemy is the spreadsheet, the accountant who hollows the newsroom until the paper survives as a name with no one left to report under it. He watches the metropolitan press collapse, the local papers go dark across the country, the reporting capacity that held towns accountable bleed out. So his hero stands against the death of reporting, and he carries the scar of that fight into every room.

Then comes the creed. He defends the old reporting faith. The journalist gathers verifiable facts and does not march as an activist. The reporter strips his politics and his wishes and lays the checked world on the page. He becomes the loudest editor in the country against Twitter, which he says tricks the journalist into mistaking a small loud crowd for the public and shrinks the field of sight, and he limits how his people may use it. That is the subtraction story of the trade, reality with the activism strained out, the report from no particular side.

He believes it, and he does not entirely believe it. The boy from the Tremé knows from the inside that the old neutral paper was never neutral, that its view from nowhere was the view from a comfortable White establishment that wrote his community small. Under him the paper runs the 1619 Project, led by Nikole Hannah-Jones (b. 1976), which moves slavery to the center of the American story, the most ambitious and most contested history the paper has tried. To its admirers it corrects the record at last. To its critics, among them eminent historians, it bends history toward a thesis. Set the project beside the Twitter crackdown and the same man does two opposite things, defending the report from no side and publishing the boldest argument from a side the paper has run in a generation. He is not a hypocrite. He is two heroes in one body, and the era will not let them live in peace.

The collisions come on a schedule. In 2020 the opinion pages run an essay by Senator Tom Cotton (b. 1977) urging troops into the streets during the unrest after George Floyd (1973-2020) is killed, and the newsroom revolts, hundreds of staff saying the piece endangers their Black colleagues, and the editor of the page resigns. Baquet does not run opinion, but the quarrel is his quarrel, the free-expression institutionalist and the justice-seeking staff at war inside his house, and the staff win. A year later veteran science reporter Donald G. McNeil leaves over a racial slur he used years before, and the handling pleases no one, the institutionalists calling it a panic and the activists calling it too slow. The verdict that fits the whole late stretch is that Baquet satisfied no one and it is hard to find a vantage point where he does not appear cowardly.

He is ringed, like any man at a center, and the rivals press from every side.

The corporate hero forged him. The spreadsheet that fired him in Los Angeles is the same logic that kills the local press he later tries to save, and it tells him his stand was romance, that reporting is a cost and the market does not owe it a living. Baquet, alone among his kind, beats this rival at The New York Times, where digital subscriptions climb from one million to more than nine and prove that readers will pay for the work. The victory carries a sting he does not price, and the close will come back to it.

The activist hero rises inside his own building, his younger staff, for whom the verifiable-facts creed is a dodge that guards the strong and exposes the weak, for whom both-sides fairness is a harm wearing a tie. The Cotton revolt is this rival taking the field and winning a yard inside the house meant to hold the line.

The independent hero stands outside it, the writer with a newsletter and no masthead, the foil to everything Baquet is, since Baquet is the pure institutionalist, never the columnist or the brand or the entrepreneur, the man who believes the building is the point. To the independent the building is the problem, a slow and captured thing, and the reporter is freer without it.

The oldest rival, and the spine of the others, is the trad and the nationalist, the man of faith and nation and place, and he reads Baquet’s center as a costume. He hears verifiable facts, not activism, and then he reads 1619 as the new catechism of the schools, and he decides the creed is a courtesy the paper extends to itself. To him the Times is no referee of the national story. It is a party to it, and Baquet’s pride in taking fire from both sides is the self-flattery of an institution that chose its side long ago and mistakes the complaints of the losing half for proof of balance. His world, the church and the flag and the founders as heroes, appears in the paper as a problem to be corrected, a history to be revised, never a people to be heard on its own ground.

Baquet names the activist danger out loud and fights it. He calls out the platform that warps his trade. And he knows, in a way the credentialed rarely do, that the old neutrality was a standpoint and not the absence of one, because he came up on the wrong side of that standpoint and felt it erase him. That double sight is rare and real. What he cannot do is resolve the two heroes or count what holding both costs the thing he loves. The institution’s authority drains from both ends at once. The trad stops trusting it because of the turn that 1619 announces, and the activist finds it too slow because of the caution the old creed demands, and the broad legitimacy Baquet prizes above all thins precisely because he tries to honor both faiths in one paper.

Baquet’s hero is doubled, the accountability institutionalist who saves the paper and breaks the great stories, and the witness from the Tremé who knows the neutral record was a White man’s record and means to fix it. His rivals ring him on every side, the spreadsheet that forged and fired and then lost to him, the activist staff who win a room in his house, the independent who needs no house, and the trad who reads his center as a side in referee’s clothes. The cost his ledger cannot read is folded inside his proudest number. The nine million who pay are not the country. They are a tribe, the educated and the like-minded, the half that already trusts the paper, and the business he builds to save journalism rests on selling that half a mirror it is glad to buy. He wins the market by narrowing the congregation. The subscriptions and the lost legitimacy are not two stories. They are one, and the ledger counts only the half that pays.

He set out to keep the great reporting alive, and on his best days he does, MeToo and the tax records and a newsroom that outlived the verdict of every actuary who buried it. On his ordinary days he is the steward of a tribe’s paper of record, holding a center that fewer and fewer believe is the center, certain to the end that the fire from both sides means he stands in the middle.

Posted in Dean Baquet | Comments Off

The Columbia Journalism Review’s Hero System

Posted on June 14, 2026 by Luke Ford

The Columbia Journalism Review became the conscience of the journalism profession through the consistent publishing of analysis that served the guild better than any competitor.

Founded in 1961 at Columbia’s journalism school, it calls itself the watchdog and friend of the press, the gold standard of media criticism, the most respected voice in the field, and its stated work is to hold journalism to its highest ideals in the service of a free society. A watchdog and a friend. The pairing is the whole story, because a watchdog that is also a friend, housed in the friend’s building and living on the friend’s goodwill, guards a house it can never quite bring itself to condemn.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) called a culture’s scheme for earning significance a hero system, the account of what makes a life worth living and a death bearable, the faith that sorts the worthy from the wasted. Institutions run on hero systems too. CJR earns its significance as the keeper of journalism’s ideals, the one that grades the graders, the priest who hears the confession of the press and assigns the penance. Its faith is the free press as the wall that holds democracy up, the only trade the Constitution names. Its immortality runs through that ideal. Outlets rise and fall, reporters disgrace themselves and retire, but the standard endures, and CJR is the standard’s keeper, which means CJR outlives the failures it catalogs by being the thing against which they are measured.

Its terrors are many. CJR dreads the captured press, the bought reporter, the access courtier who trades coverage for proximity. It dreads the trivial press, the clickbait and the chum that crowd out the public business. It dreads the discredited press, the outlet no one believes, and behind that the politician who calls the press the enemy of the people, the platforms that strip its revenue, the machine that now writes copy for free. And it dreads, most intimately, the press that will not look at itself, the guild that closes ranks, because that failure is the one CJR exists to cure and the one nearest its own door.

Here is the creed. CJR judges journalism by journalism’s own professional standards, accuracy and fairness and independence and rigor and the avoidance of conflicts, and it offers these as neutral instruments, a scale any honest party would read the same way. The critic stands above the fray, friend to no faction, scoring the work against the rules of the craft. That is the subtraction story of the press critic, the meta-version of the reporter’s own claim to objectivity, the referee who insists he roots for no team.

The standards are not the neutral tools they seem. What counts as rigor, what counts as a credible source, what counts as disinformation to be fought and what counts as a legitimate voice to be covered, who is a journalist at all and who is a propagandist or a crank, every one of these calls runs on a prior sense of what the press is for and what a serious person already believes. That sense was formed in a place, the graduate school, the foundation board, the professional class that staffs the field, and it carries that world’s politics whether or not it means to. The outside raters who track such things place CJR on the center-left, and the placement surprises no one who reads it. The conscience of the profession shares the profession’s blind side, because it is the profession examining itself, and a guild’s conscience defends the guild even while it scolds particular sins, since the conscience and the guild draw their significance from the same well.

Twice in recent years the seam showed.

In early 2023 CJR published Jeff Gerth’s four-part, twenty-four-thousand-word autopsy of the press’s Trump and Russia coverage, an argument that the biggest outlets ran ahead of the evidence, won prizes for work that later drew retractions, and never went back to account for it. Here was the watchdog turning on the pack. Two things followed, and both expose the hero system. The journalists Gerth questioned mostly declined to engage, which he found perplexing and which is not perplexing at all, since a guild does not convene a tribunal on itself at the invitation of its own ombudsman. And the critique, the instant it appeared, was swallowed by the war it meant to rise above, hailed as vindication on the right, dismissed as a hit job on the left, conflict of interest alleged, the point declared missed. CJR had imagined a place above the field from which to judge the field. The reception taught it there is no such place. Its act of conscience became another round of ammunition, and the referee found he had been wearing a jersey the whole time.

Then in 2025 the house caught fire. CJR had gone nearly a year without a permanent editor and brought in Sewell Chan to revive it. Eight months later the journalism school’s dean fired him after staff complaints. By Chan’s account, the friction came from his insisting on the very things the magazine preaches, a conflict-of-interest problem with a writer who had covered an outlet he was about to write for, a stalled investigation he wanted moved toward publication, a staffer who neither came in nor filed. The school disputed nothing in public and said little. Read it however you like and it cuts the same way. The magazine that monitors the press for ethics and rigor and deadlines could not run its own small newsroom by those lights, or could not hold them against a staff that had come to read professional rigor as harm. The ombudsman needed an ombudsman, and the standards that travel so well in judgment of others will not stay nailed down at home.

A conscience is ringed by those who reject its authority, and CJR is ringed on four sides.

Its own younger staff hold the activist hero, the journalist as advocate and witness, for whom the old professional balance is not virtue but a polite cover for harm, and who read CJR’s standards talk as the establishment defending a neutrality that was never neutral. The Chan affair was that quarrel in miniature, inside the very building meant to settle it.

The independent holds another. The man with a newsletter and no credential, the podcaster, the reporter who left the institution or never entered it, often did the press criticism CJR is paid to do, and did it first. On Russiagate the outsiders had hammered the story for years before the gold standard arrived to grade it, which left them asking what the Columbia name adds beyond the Columbia name, why the building should certify a craft the building keeps failing at.

The market holds a third, and it holds CJR by the throat. Press criticism does not pay. CJR survives as a nonprofit on the alms of its university and its donors, kept alive by patronage because the open market will not feed a watchdog. The critic who lives on alms learns which hands not to bite, and the lesson need never be spoken to be learned.

The fourth rival is the oldest and the spine of the rest, the trad and the nationalist, the man rooted in faith and people and place who reads the whole apparatus as a guild guarding its monopoly. To him CJR is no referee. It is the licensing board, the body that rules which press is real and which is propaganda, and the ruling always seems to leave his press, the populist and the religious and the partisan, outside the line. When CJR raises the alarm over disinformation and the threats facing journalists, he hears a profession defending its turf and its politics in the language of public service. He notes that his world enters these pages as a danger to be managed, a misinformation problem, a study in why trust has fallen, never as a public owed a hearing on its own terms. And he draws the conclusion the institution cannot afford to draw, that the standards are not the measure of the game but a move within it.

Weigh its awareness, because the case is strange. No institution performs self-examination more openly. CJR exists to criticize the press, runs its own pieces on why the left distrusts the media and why the right does, published the Gerth autopsy knowing the storm it invited. The self-scrutiny is the brand. And yet the scrutiny stops at one wall, the wall around itself as an institution with a standpoint and an interest and a roster of patrons. It can flay The New York Times. It cannot quite ask whether the chair it judges from is bolted to the same floor. It can grade the guild’s lapses and miss that its own authority rises and falls with the guild’s, that a watchdog kenneled in the journalism school and fed by the foundations cannot finally indict the arrangement that houses and feeds it. The performance of self-criticism is real and the limit on it is structural, and the limit stays invisible from inside, because the institution mistakes its own standpoint for the standpoint of the craft.

CJR’s hero is the conscience of the profession, the watchdog of the watchdog, keeper of the ideal of a free press and the standard against which every newsroom is weighed. Its rivals ring it on every side, the activist in its own newsroom, the independent who does its work without its blessing, the market that starves it, and beneath them the trad who reads its neutrality as the guild’s self-defense in a referee’s stripes. The cost its ledger cannot read is the plainest one, that a conscience drawing its life from the body it judges can audit every sin but the sin of the arrangement, can name every captured outlet but the manner of its own capture, and so spends its credibility guarding the legitimacy of the profession whose legitimacy it was built to question.

It set out to be the room where journalism faces itself. On its best days it is, and those days are a public good no other room provides. On its ordinary days it is the chaplain of a guild, keeping the faith warm for a congregation that shrinks and a clergy that does not care to confess, certain it stands outside the church it has never left.

Posted in Columbia, Journalism | Comments Off