4 ms·

I started reading about 10 years ago so don't have a great reference for earlier writing. But just looking at some of ones from this year highlighted on longfo

by gxqoz 6y ago

I started reading about 10 years ago so don't have a great reference for earlier writing. But just looking at some of ones from this year highlighted on longform, there was some great stuff here: https://longform.org/archive/publications/new-yorker https://longform.org/archive/publications/new-yorker For instance "Trolling the Great Outdoors", "Why Does the Pandemic Seem to Be Hitting Some Countries Harder Than Others?", and "Fish Farming Is Feeding the Globe. What’s the Cost for Locals?". And its TV criticism under Emily Nussbaum (who hasn't written an article since 2019 for reasons I haven't been able to figure out) was consistently excellent.

keiferski 6y ago
It's not that they are universally terrible now, just that they've fallen into the same political-hype blackhole as everyone else. I remember looking at their home page a few years ago and seeing the top 10 articles all being about Trump. That obsession with politics didn't really happen in previous eras and even when it did, it was counterbalanced by some legitimate literary criticism. Looking at their home page now, it's uh, not quite the same.
- gxqoz 6y ago
  It's certainly true that it's gotten more topical and hence more overtly political. Part of this is surely a change to having more of an online readership (and online-only articles). When you're writing a magazine piece, it can be at best a week behind the news. This constraint doesn't exist for online pieces. That being said, I think the New Yorker still offers some of the best and nuanced political analysis. I certainly prefer it to the New York Times.
- keyrat 6y ago
  I fault David Remnick, the editor, for this. He really became obsessed with Trump during his presidency. The thing is, it seems like Mr. Remnick has been a very good administrator of the magazine, guiding it through a very rough time for print media, so the chances that he will be replaced or step down anytime soon are slim. That said, I am looking forward to a fresh perspective for the magazine in the future even if I still mostly enjoy it now.
- xkr 6y ago
  My approach is to take their weekly magazines (paper or digital) instead of browsing through the home page. Weekly editions still include an article or two on US politics, but in general are significantly more diverse.

by gxqoz 6y ago

keiferski 6y ago

It's not that they are universally terrible now, just that they've fallen into the same political-hype blackhole as everyone else. I remember looking at their home page a few years ago and seeing the top 10 articles all being about Trump. That obsession with politics didn't really happen in previous eras and even when it did, it was counterbalanced by some legitimate literary criticism. Looking at their home page now, it's uh, not quite the same.

gxqoz 6y ago
It's certainly true that it's gotten more topical and hence more overtly political. Part of this is surely a change to having more of an online readership (and online-only articles). When you're writing a magazine piece, it can be at best a week behind the news. This constraint doesn't exist for online pieces. That being said, I think the New Yorker still offers some of the best and nuanced political analysis. I certainly prefer it to the New York Times.
keyrat 6y ago
I fault David Remnick, the editor, for this. He really became obsessed with Trump during his presidency. The thing is, it seems like Mr. Remnick has been a very good administrator of the magazine, guiding it through a very rough time for print media, so the chances that he will be replaced or step down anytime soon are slim. That said, I am looking forward to a fresh perspective for the magazine in the future even if I still mostly enjoy it now.
xkr 6y ago
My approach is to take their weekly magazines (paper or digital) instead of browsing through the home page. Weekly editions still include an article or two on US politics, but in general are significantly more diverse.