The discussion was moderated by Wesley Brown, author of Push Comes to Shove, who started off by asking Navasky and Fish to tell about the defining experience their lives that led them into political journalism. Navasky told of his experience working at a summer camp in 1945 where the debate raged over whether relief funds should go to Russian War Relief, an alleged Communist front group, or to the United Nations relief fund. Fish recounted his experience going around the country registering new voters in the fall of 1971, after the 26th Amendment, giving 18-year-olds the right to vote, had been ratified. Fish recalled some of the more bizarre requirements for registration being imposed in university towns to prevent students from registering. For example, In Champaign-Urbana, home of the University of Illinois, voters were required to declare their intention to be buried in the local cemetery.

Responding to Brown’s question about the circumstances that led them to The Nation, Fish explained that when he and other investors purchased The Nation out of bankruptcy in 1977, there were 16,000 subscribers—10,000 libraries and 6,000 nursing homes, he added, evoking laughter from the audience. In the era that saw the introduction and instant popularity of People magazine, it may have seemed unlikely that a “dense text-oriented, nonvisual publication” like The Nation would succeed, but it did. Today, The Nation has 185,000 paying subscribers.

In describing what inspired him to leave The New York Times to become the editor of The Nation, Navasky said that when researching his book, Naming Names, published in 1980, about the Hollywood blacklist of the McCarthy era, he found that The Nation was the magazine that had the most significant pieces about the blacklist at the time.

The discussion was seasoned with good natured humor from this pair of eminent journalists who had worked together as publisher (Fish) and editor (Navasky) of The Nation. Navasky told the story of a phone call mistakenly made to Fish’s grandfather, Hamilton Fish III, Republican congressman from New York from 1920 to 1945, by socialist philosopher Corliss Lamont. According to Navasky’s account, when Lamont identified himself, the elder Fish said, “Corliss Lamont the communist? You must want my grandson.” Fish added that his grandfather, who was 93 at the time, then asked Lamont, “Are you still alive?” To which Lamont responded, “Are you still alive?”

In the context of talking about his famous Republican ancestor, Fish humorously expressed his personal anxiety that his children “might have to become Republicans.”

Fish mentioned his grandfather again when talking about his own involvement with Reds, Warren Beatty’s 1981 epic film about the Russian Revolution, in which Hamilton Fish III appeared as himself. Fish worked with the documentary film director Marcel Ophuls, helping to provide the financial backing needed to complete Memory of Justice (1976), which explores the atrocities committed in wartime, and was the executive producer for Hotel Terminus (1988), Ophuls’ documentary about Klaus Barbie, the infamous “Nazi Butcher of Lyons.”

On the theme of The Nation’s editorial policy, Navasky mentioned an article published in The Nation in 2002 about Israel and apartheid written by Desmond Tutu and Ian Urbina, which brought criticism for its dissent about Israel’s policies similar to that which followed the 1981 publication in The Nation of Gore Vidal’s article “Pink Triangle and Yellow Star,” which drew parallels between the persecution of homosexuals and Jews. After the Vidal article was published, Navasky was surprised to see himself described as a “self-hating Jew.” Navasky explained The Nation’s editorial policy in regard to Israel—and also to the United States—saying: “If you care about it, you should be critical of policies that do not live up to its ideals.” Navasky’s recollection about being accused of self-hate prompted Fish to note that, with his Westchester background, he expected his association with Navasky to give him “immunity to being accused of anti-Semitism,” implying that this had not been the case. He went on to say that The Nation had been able to “break beyond restrictions that most media are subject to—sensibilities of readership, advertisers, and ownership.”

Questions from the audience brought up the issue of new technology and the dissemination of public knowledge. Navasky made the point that the speed of the Internet is “degrading to the whole news landscape,” but Fish maintained that the Internet can be a partner rather than a threat to traditional media. He pointed out that “Nation content and Nation values” are now a presence in various media, including the Internet, and noted that the Internet has been a source of new subscriptions for The Nation and has greatly reduced the cost of acquisition of new subscriptions.

There was also a question about the “carnie” quality of the news as it is delivered on TV and its impact on publications like The Nation. In his response, Fish talked about the “hunger for content” that exists and explained that The Nation actually benefits from the carnival nature of TV media. People seek “serious engagement with serious ideas,” said Fish, and have “turned to The Nation is large numbers because it has become a serious source of real ideas.”