National Review
National Review is an American conservative right-libertarian[4] editorial magazine, focusing on news and commentary pieces on political, social, and cultural affairs. The magazine was founded by the author William F. Buckley Jr. in 1955.[5] Its editor-in-chief is Rich Lowry, and its editor is Ramesh Ponnuru.
This article is about the American magazine. For other uses, see National Review (disambiguation).Editor-in-Chief
Editorial magazine, American conservatism
Monthly[1]
75,000[3]
November 19, 1955
National Review, Inc.
United States
New York City, New York, U.S.
English
Since its founding, the magazine has played a significant role in the development of conservatism in the United States, helping to define its boundaries[5] and promoting fusionism while establishing itself as a leading voice on the American right.[5][6][7]
A popular web version of the magazine, National Review Online ("N.R.O."), includes a digital version of the magazine, with articles updated daily by National Review writers, and conservative blogs. The online version is called N.R.O. to distinguish it from the printed magazine. It also features free articles, though these deviate in content from its print magazine. The site's editor is Phillip Klein, who replaced Charles C. W. Cooke.[40]
Each day, the site posts new content consisting of conservative, libertarian, and neoconservative opinion articles, including some syndicated columns, and news features.
It also features two blogs:
Markos Moulitsas, who runs the liberal Daily Kos web-site, told reporters in August 2007 that he does not read conservative blogs, with the exception of those on N.R.O.: "I do like the blogs at the National Review—I do think their writers are the best in the [conservative] blogosphere," he said.[43]
National Review Institute[edit]
The N.R.I. works in policy development and helping establish new advocates in the conservative movement. National Review Institute was founded by William F. Buckley Jr. in 1991 to engage in policy development, public education, and advocacy that would advance the conservative principles he championed.[44]
In 2019, the Whittaker Chambers family prevailed on the N.R.I. to cease an award in Chambers' name, after an award to people whom the family found objectionable.[45][46][47]
Finances[edit]
As with most political opinion magazines in the United States, National Review carries little corporate advertising. The magazine stays afloat from subscription fees, donations, and black-tie fundraisers around the country. The magazine also sponsors cruises featuring National Review editors and contributors as lecturers.[29][48]
Buckley said in 2005 that the magazine had lost about $25,000,000 over 50 years.[49]
Controversies[edit]
Climate change[edit]
According to Philip Bump of The Washington Post, National Review "has regularly criticized and rejected the scientific consensus on climate change".[57] In 2015, the magazine published an intentionally deceptive graph which suggested that there was no climate change.[57][58][59] The graph set the lower and upper bounds of the chart at -10 and 110 degrees Fahrenheit and zoomed out so as to obscure warming trends.[59]
In 2017, National Review published an article alleging that a top NOAA scientist claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration engaged in data manipulation and rushed a study based on faulty data in order to influence the Paris climate negotiations.[60] The article largely repeated allegations made in the Daily Mail without independent verification.[61] The scientist in question later rejected the claims made by National Review, noting that he did not accuse NOAA of data manipulation but instead raised concerns about "the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability".[60]
In 2014, climate scientist Michael E. Mann sued National Review after columnist Mark Steyn accused Mann of fraud and referenced a quote from Competitive Enterprise Institute writer Rand Simberg that called Mann "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."[62][63][64] Civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several publications such as The Washington Post expressed support for National Review in the lawsuit, filing amicus briefs in their defense.[65]