Foreign Policy
Fall 1998

Editing a Changed World

 

What difference do international affairs journals make in today’s world? Editors from more than a dozen leading international-affairs journals in Europe and the United States met at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on July 14th and 15th, 1998 to consider the answer to that question in a roundtable discussion sponsored by the Center for Applied Policy Research and FOREIGN POLICY.

Although the journals represented at the roundtable were a diverse group–some more than three decades old and some just five years new, some with circulations of 100,000 and others with a small fraction of that number–there was considerable consensus on the challenges that international-affairs journals faced in the post–Cold War world. Not only must journals struggle to make sense of a new strategic landscape, but also they must seek to make their influence felt at a time when competition from other media is on the rise and public interest in their field is on the decline. Few participants were optimistic that the intellectual environment for their journals was likely to improve in the near term. Nonetheless, the roundtable offered participants an invaluable opportunity to exchange ideas on how to reach new audiences, make the best use of new media, and strengthen their comparative advantages. By bringing together colleagues from both sides of the Atlantic, the roundtable also usefully highlighted differences in perspective and approach between U.S. and European journals and laid the basis for greater exchange and cooperation between the two sides.

 

New Topics, New Trends, New Audiences

In an opening presentation for the first day’s discussions, Phil Gordon, the editor of Survival, sketched a field in the midst of an identity crisis, with journals catering more and more to smaller segments of an increasingly balkanized public and changing their editorial focus. Informally comparing the contents of six of the most widely read English-language international-affairs journals from four years in the 1980s with that from the last four years, Gordon noted changes in coverage that included a rise in articles on globalization, regional conflicts, economic security (from 51 articles to 82 articles); NATO (twice as many articles); weapons of mass destruction (three times as many articles); and East Asia (also tripled). Declining steeply were articles on military and defense policies (80 to 50 articles); on Soviet and then post-Soviet affairs (half as many as before); and on African issues (a decline by fourfold). More fundamentally, Gordon argued that there had been a significant change in editorial approach. Journals that once took reader interest for granted now strove to make articles catchier and more provocative. Asking how today’s editors would respond if George Kennan’s famous article on “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” came across their desk, Gordon mused that they would likely accept it, but ask Kennan to make it shorter, give it a snappier title, and cut out all the Russian history as a needless distraction.

Participants were keenly aware that the health and, in some cases, survival of their journals hinged on their ability to adapt to today’s changed environment. Most of the journals present still relied on subsidies to fund their operations, with Phil Gordon commenting that they enabled Survival’s to continue providing the kind of in-depth coverage of specialized topics that its readers had come to expect. Others, such as Jim Hoge of Foreign Affairs, Caroline Soper of International Affairs, Bill Finan of Current History, and Fernando Delage of Politica Exterior said they had found it possible to operate “in the black,” as Soper put it. But there were risks for journals in the quest for readers and revenues. Hoge argued that there was a “natural audience” that journals seek to exceed at their peril. Moises Naim of Foreign Policy and several other participants noted that it would be foolish for international affairs journals to seek to emulate much bigger mainstream publications such as the Economist and the New Republic, observing that international affairs journals lacked the resources to compete in coverage and risked losing their comparative advantage and distinct identity.

There was general agreement that there was nothing wrong in seeking to be more provocative, provided that editors continued to hew to high standards for factual accuracy and intellectual rigor. Almost all those present lamented a decline in the quality of unsolicited submissions, with some blaming greater competition for good writers and others the increasing unwillingness or inability of academics to write for a general audience; participants also said that they were increasingly reluctant to publish articles by sitting officials and statesmen, observing that such pieces were more likely to be driven by “spin” than substance and rarely said anything of lasting value. Almost all journals were making changes in their format to appeal more to their readers. Nicholas Koukopoulos of the Washington Quarterly, for example, said that his journal was offering more shorter (2,000-word) articles that offer readers a quick summation of a particular issue. Gabrielle Tonne of the International Spectator said that it planned to introduce columns that provided more colorful and personal commentary. Although there was some debate about how best to use the World Wide Web, a consensus emerged that it was not only a useful resource for readers, but also that journals were more likely to gain than lose subscribers by posting portions of their content for free on the Internet.

Participants also discussed the difference between problems faced by U.S. and European journals in adapting to change, as well as between English and non-English language publications. Several commented that the sheer volume and number of U.S. publications tended to overshadow their European counterparts. On the other hand, there was general agreement that there was less competition among European and non-English language journals, and hence less pressure to make changes in format and content.

 

Do Journals Still Make a Difference?

International affairs journals face more competition and pressures in their efforts to shape public debate and influence policymakers. Steve Erlanger, chief diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times and one of three roundtable guest speakers, said that there was general agreement among his colleagues that the influence of journals was limited and continuing to decline—most said that they generally referred to such publications only two or three times a year. Erlanger observed that the move toward computerized data bases and greater time pressures have pushed journalists to search for particular article titles rather than to rely on subscriptions and read entire volumes. In his three years in Washington as chief diplomatic correspondent, his experience has been that journalists and policymakers increasingly look for “quick hits” rather than “big ideas.” On the other hand, Erlanger said that the articles that he found most useful were those that “shifted his perspective.” He thought the challenge for international affairs journals was to produce the kind of articles that readers would return to three or four weeks after an initial reading. He warned against the increasing tendency of journals to tap “political camps in waiting” for articles—the increasingly widespread practice in the United States of soliciting or accepting articles from opposition party members that are essentially no more than long “op-eds.” He recommended a mix of perspective shifting idea pieces with shorter features (book reviews, etc.) that help readers cope with a growing flood of information, with a particular focus on economics.

Moderator Josef Janning of the Center for Applied Policy Research (Munich) observed that Erlanger’s comments boded bad news for most journals. While participants such as Adam Garfinkel of the National Interest said that they feel the press is a key target, several roundtable participants suggested that they did not see Erlanger and his newspaper colleagues as the most important part of their readership. Reimund Krämer of WeltTrends (Potsdam) argued that the swelling tide in information in fact increased the need for interpretation and analysis, and urged journals to pay more attention to the needs of university students in particular. Again, several important differences in the role played by journals in the United States and Europe emerged. Several participants noted that most European daily newspapers provide much greater foreign coverage than their U.S. counterparts; in that respect, journals fill a different niche. Janning noted that with the unforeseen collapse of the Soviet Union, elites feel less secure in their understanding of international matters of consequence. Hence, there may actually be more of an opening (in Germany, at least) for journals to provide insight and analysis. Several U.S. participants said that the growing interest of business in international affairs had prompted them to beef up their economic and financial coverage.

Policymakers generally echoed Erlanger’s observations about the negative impact of time pressures on their reading of journals. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott observed that in government, the urgent drives out the merely important. He told roundtable participants that what he valued most were articles that gave him a sense of the world and some long-term vision. Since there were pressures in government that drive its written product toward homogeneity, he particularly valued the bold, fresh outlook that many of them offered. State Department Director of Policy Planning Greg Craig said that journals actually had become more important to him now that he was in government, citing their ability to draw his attention to particular issues or regions that would otherwise not loom as large. Asked what topics that journals should be addressing more frequently, Talbott said that journals should offer more analysis that integrates economics into traditional national security issues.

 

Future Cooperation

Despite the negative trends that became the focus for much of the discussion, roundtable participants clearly saw the challenges they faced as an opportunity for greater collaboration and cooperation. Several concrete initiatives emerged, including proposals to exchange advertising, subscriptions, and reader survey information and to refer authors and articles to those journals that are most likely to be interested in what they have to offer. There is also now a common World Wide Web site working area available to roundtable participants seeking to exchange ideas. Several participants also welcomed suggestions for some kind of continuing forum that would enable them to continue pursuing the dialogue launched at this highly successful roundable.

 

Conference Papers

Explaining Complexity
Fernando Delage, Managing Editor, Politica Exterior

On Reaching the Elites
Adam Garfinkle, Executive Editor, The National Interest

New Audiences
James Gibney, Managing Editor, Foreign Policy

Editing in a Changing World
James Hoge, Editor, Foreign Affairs

Editing in the Emerging Berlin Republic
Reimund Krämer, Managing Editor, WeltTrends

Notes for the Margins
Christopher Lord, Managing Editor, Perspectives

Perspectives from London
Caroline Soper, Editor, International Affairs