> Magazines are mostly short form, cheap content (excluding periodical literary magazines, indie 'zines, etc.) I'd disagree on this. If you compare magazine ne

> Magazines are mostly short form, cheap content (excluding periodical literary magazines, indie 'zines, etc.) I'd disagree on this. If you compare magazine news reporting with newspaper reporting, the magazine is usually deeper, more capable of investigation and fact-checking. Ofc, this can be contested magazine to magazine but it's a general trend that magazine stories take more time to write (1-2 weeks to several months) than a newspaper story (1 day to 1 week max). But the main reason I disagree is that magazine content is far from what I'd call cheap. Pick up an old magazine, like LIFE or even TIME or PCGamer from a decade or three ago, and it's like a page out of the past. It captures reality in a way books cannot, because of the ads, photos, reader letters and so on. I love old magazines and they're some of the most priceless things I carry from my past. This includes a stack of Nat Geo from the 90s. Heavy as hell, but survived multiple house moves. That's a moment of nature, several hundred per issue, from a period long gone. How much of those moments are impossible to snap today, one could ask. > In short: It's very difficult to replicate the experience of a book using technology (somehow books have survived the rise of e-readers), but social media optimized magazines down to their most fundamental elements Totally agreed. Though I think what made a magazine special doesn't necessarily translate when you turn it into just another piece of content on the internet. A NewYorkPost and an Atlantic article occupy probably the same amount of space and attention time of a typical reader, though both have vastly different qualities of information