Charles Lane (Journalist) Biography
Charles “Chuck” Lane (born 1961) is an American journalist and editor who is an editorial writer for The Washington Post and a regular guest on Fox News Channel. He was the lead editor of The New Republic from 1997 to 1999. After the New Republic, he worked for the Post, where, from 2000 to 2009, he covered the Supreme Court of the United States and judicial system issues. He has since joined the newspaper’s editorial page.
Charles Lane (Journalist) Age
Charles “Chuck” Lane is an American journalist and editor who is an editorial writer for The Washington Post and a regular guest on Fox News Channel.
He was the lead editor of The New Republic from 1997 to 1999. He was born in 1961, in the United States. He is 58 years old as of the year
Charles Lane (Journalist) Early life and education
Born to a Jewish family in 1961, Lane went to Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School, where he was managing editor of the school newspaper, The Tattler. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard University in 1983. As a Knight Fellow, he earned a Master of Studies in Law from Yale Law School in 1997.
Charles Lane (Journalist) Career
Lane is a former foreign correspondent for Newsweek and served as the magazine’s Berlin bureau chief. His coverage of the former Yugoslavia was featured in the book Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know, edited by Roy Gutman and David Rieff.
The New Republic’s owner, Marty Peretz, appointed Lane as editor in 1997 after firing Michael Kelly. Kelly had published a series of articles that Peretz felt was too critical of President Bill Clinton. In 1998, a scandal arose at The New Republic when fabricated reporting by Stephen Glass was discovered.
Lane fired Glass.” Peretz replaced Lane with Peter Beinart in 1999. Lane reportedly learned of his firing from the media before he heard about it from Peretz.
The Glass fabrications were “the greatest scandal in the magazine’s history and marked a decade of waning influence and mounting financial losses,” the New York Times would later report. Explaining why it took so long to catch Glass’ fraud, Peretz blamed two of his editors, Michael Kelly and Lane, for not catching the fraud earlier.
Lane, Peretz claimed, ignored obvious warning signs of the fabrication, and then attempted to unfairly lay the blame to his predecessor, Kelly. Peretz claimed that Lane’s alleged inaction “sullied the good name of the New Republic.
Peretz subsequently fired Lane.” According to an account in the American Prospect, “Lane got the news [of his firing] from a Washington Post reporter who called to inquire about his future plans.”
Lane has taught journalism at Georgetown University in Washington, DC and at Princeton University.
In 2008 Lane published The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction, about the Colfax massacre of 1873 in Louisiana of blacks by white militia, including the murder of surrendered prisoners.
He explored its political repercussions during Reconstruction, including the resulting Supreme Court case from United States prosecution of perpetrators, United States v. Cruikshank (1876).
The Court ruled that actions of individuals were not covered by constitutional protections and suggested that individuals should seek relief in state courts. But during and for many decades after Reconstruction, these rarely prosecuted and never convicted white men for offenses against blacks.
Charles Lane (Journalist) Image
Charles Lane (Journalist) Wife, Personal life
Charles Lane is a Post editorial writer specializing in economic and fiscal policy, and a weekly columnist. Lane joined The Post in 2000 as an editorial writer, did a stint as The Post’s Supreme Court reporter and then rejoined the editorial board in 2007.
Previously, he was editor and a senior editor of the New Republic from 1993 to 1999 and a foreign correspondent for Newsweek from 1987 to 1993. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Lane is married to a German immigrant from the former East Berlin. They have three children.
Charles Lane (Journalist) Popular culture
The 1998 journalism scandal at The New Republic was portrayed in the 2003 film Shattered Glass. Lane was portrayed by actor Peter Sarsgaard.
Glass published a “biographical novel” entitled The Fabulist (2003) about his career of journalistic fabrication. “Robert Underwood” was a major character in the “novel” and taken as a fictionalized version of Charles Lane.
Reviewing the book for the Washington Post, Chris Lehmann wrote that the Underwood character “is meant to induce in-the-know readers to think poorly of Charles Lane.”
Charles Lane (Journalist) Nominations: Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing
The Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing is one of the fourteen American Pulitzer Prizes that are annually awarded for Journalism. It has been awarded since 1917 for distinguished editorial writing, the test of excellence being clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in what the writer conceives to be the right direction.
Thus it is one of the original Pulitzers, for the program was inaugurated in 1917 with seven prizes, four of which were awarded that year. The program has also recognized opinion journalism with its Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning from 1922.
Finalists have been announced from 1980, ordinarily two others beside the winner.
One person ordinarily wins the award for work with one newspaper or with affiliated papers, and that was true without exception between 1936 (the only time two prizes were given) and 1977.
In the early years, several newspapers were recognized without naming any writer, and that has occasionally happened recently. Several times from 1977, two or three people have shared the award for their work with one paper.
Charles Lane (Journalist) Net Worth
Estimated Net Worth and Income Info:
Charles Lane’s 2018 estimated net worth is Under Review` up from Under Review in 2017 with estimated 2017-2018 earnings` salary` and income of Under Review.
Based on our estimates` Charles scores in the top percentile when it comes to other people in groups mentioned previously!
2017 Estimated Net Worth: | Under Review |
2018 Estimated Net Worth: | Under Review |
2017/2018 Estimated Salary and Earnings: | Under Review |
What is Charles Lane’s Net Worth?
Charles Lane’s 2018 estimated net worth is Under Review` compared to Under Review in 2017.
What is Charles Lane’s Salary` Earnings` and Income?
Charles Lane’s estimated 2017 and 2018 income` earnings` and salary come to a total of Under Review.
How Much is Charles Lane Worth?
We estimate that Charles Lane is currently worth a total of Under Review.
Charles Lane (Journalist) Twitter
Charles Lane (Journalist) Jeopardy
Charles Lane: ‘Jeopardy!’ has stopped being fun because James Holzhauer is a menace
Night after night for more than two weeks, “Jeopardy!” champion James Holzhauer has crushed two opponents on the venerable game show as a pair of bugs.
By the time you read this, his streak may have ended, but it doesn’t seem likely: As of Monday, he had won 18 games in a row, amassing more than $1.3 million, including the top five one-day scores in “Jeopardy!” history.
To the multitudes who have rooted Holzhauer on, I have just one question: Do you not see that this guy is a menace?
The only thing more troubling, as a commentary on American culture, than his grinning, relentless, march to victory — regardless of when, or if, it ends — is that millions celebrated it.
People seemed not to care that Holzhauer’s streak reflects the same grim, data-driven approach to competition that has spoiled (among other sports) baseball, where it has given us the “shift,” “wins above replacement,” “swing trajectories” and other statistically valid but unholy innovations.
Like the number crunchers who now rule America’s pastime, Holzhauer substitutes cold, calculating odds-maximization for spontaneous play. His idea is to select and respond correctly too, harder, big-dollar clues on the show’s 30-square gameboard first.
Then, flush with cash, he searches the finite set of hiding places for the “Daily Double” clue, which permits players to set their own prize for a correct response — and makes a huge bet. Responding correctly, Holzhauer often builds an insurmountable lead before the show is half over.
Dazed and demoralized opponents offer to weaken resistance as his winnings snowball. And, with experience gained from each new appearance on the show, Holzhauer’s personal algorithms improved and his advantage grew.
In short, this professional gambler from Las Vegas does not so much play the game as beat the system. What’s entertaining about that? And beyond a certain point, what’s admirable?
Full disclosure: I am a “Jeopardy!” failure, so feel free to accuse me of sour grapes. In the Sept. 17, 1991, episode, I finished third behind returning champion Randy Kaplan, who racked up $21,000 to win again, and Maureen Fernbacher, a school librarian from Salisbury Township, Pa. Kaplan’s haul was at or near the all-time single-game record for the era, but a far cry from Holzhauer’s top score (as of Monday): $131,127.
Losing on “Jeopardy!” was unforgettable, nightmarish — like being trapped inside a pinball machine for 22 minutes, as lights flashed, bells rang, and Randy, always Randy, barked out one correct response after another until host Alex Trebek, through his then-trademark mustache, purred “no” at my non-response to Final Jeopardy (“What is ‘?’”) and a production assistant ushered me out to the parking lot, where I blinked in confusion under the hot California sun.
I took comfort not only in the consolation prizes (scented trash bags and a pair of jeans) but also in knowing that late-20th century “Jeopardy!” was an amateur event, open to everyman and everywoman, governed by rules both written (a five-show limit for returning champions prior to 2003) and unwritten (contestants started by selecting the easier, low-money questions first, and worked their way up).
Of course, Holzhauer’s strategy could not work without his freaky-good knowledge of trivia, just as baseball’s shift requires a pitcher skilled at inducing batters to hit into it.
The old rules, though, would have contained his talent within humane channels. As it is, he’s set a precedent for the further professionalization of “Jeopardy!,” a trend which began 15 years ago with 74-time winner Ken Jennings.
If you enjoy watching nine batters in a row strikeout until the 10th hits a homer, you’re going to love post-Holzhauer “Jeopardy!”
Okay, okay: There are more of you than there are of me. Viewers like “Jeopardy!” prodigies, which is why the show advertises them even as they drain its prize-money reserves. The show’s Nielsen ratings were 22 percent higher during Jennings’s 2004 run than during the same period in 2003.
Consider, however, a historical irony of Holzhauer’s run. He hit the airwaves shortly after Charles Van Doren’s death at 93. Van Doren was an unassuming New York academic until 1956, when he made a Faustian bargain with the ratings-hungry producers of “21,” a network quiz show: they’d feed him the answers, and tons of cash, in the show after show, as long as he kept the secret. The inevitable scandal revolutionized TV games and disgraced Van Doren.
Among its repercussions is the quirky, backward Q & A, format of “Jeopardy!” itself. Creator Merv Griffin sold the show to NBC in 1964 by pointing out that there could be no repeat of the “21” scam if the object of the game was to come up with the right question.
Decades later, it’s a contestant who might be getting a game show to sell its soul. There’s nothing illegal or dishonest this time, to be sure. It’s just not fun. It’s just not “Jeopardy!”
About InformationCradle Editorial Staff
This Article is produced by InformationCradle Editorial Staff which is a team of expert writers and editors led by Josphat Gachie and trusted by millions of readers worldwide.
We endeavor to keep our content True, Accurate, Correct, Original and Up to Date. For complain, correction or an update, please send us an email to informationcradle@gmail.com. We promise to take corrective measures to the best of our abilities.