6 ms·

We subscribed to Newsweek throughout my childhood, even living overseas. I recall excitedly going through it every time it arrived. As far as the news digest fo

by etrain 14y ago

We subscribed to Newsweek throughout my childhood, even living overseas. I recall excitedly going through it every time it arrived. As far as the news digest format went, in those days they mixed topic areas fluidly, while keeping their readers informed. I canceled my personal subscription years ago. To me, the format changes had made it less comprehensive, the quality of writing had declined, and it had become too political. Or, maybe I'd just outgrown it. Sure, they'll have a digital version, but they have far smaller staff (and impact) than they once did. They're a marginally iconic publication, who were unable to adapt to the new world, and are thus a victim of the changing landscape of journalism.

willholloway 14y ago
I had the exact same childhood experience. Fond memories of sitting on the front porch in summer reading every article. I remember when Time darkened the OJ Simpson cover to make him appear more sinister! Newsweek was on the right side of that one, and soon they will be gone. It was foundational learning, along with Sid Meier's Civilization and Winston Groom's Forest Gump and the sequel Gump & Company. The Gump books are funny enough to keep the attention of a fourth grader, and teach modern American history along the way. We really, really, really have to figure a way to distribute the bounty of our bigger than ever economy a bit better, so professional journalism can continue.
at-fates-hands 14y ago
> the quality of writing had declined, and it had become too political. In my mind it has become way too Liberal. Maybe I didn't realize it when I was growing up and reading it every month, but it certainly has changed. Too bad really, in a time when there's so much opinion pieces and media outlets are all slanted one way or another, it would be nice to have a news organization which simply reported the news and didn't have a vested interest in some political party which slanted its views.
- swordswinger12 14y ago
  Any magazine that features cover stories from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Niall Ferguson is hardly 'liberal'.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  I would say public TV and radio is the closest thing to this. ("This" being a mostly balanced media organization) It's impossible to completely eliminate bias though - even absent opinion pieces or editorializing, there's going to be some small level in the stories you choose to cover. *ed Wow, downvotes? Anyone care to rebut instead of click and run?
  - cschmidt 14y ago
    I upvoted, since it is lame to downvote just for an honest disagreement of opinion. I think NPR is seen as having a liberal slant. NPR has done some very in depth studies of this, counting liberal stories vs conservative, and determined that there was no bias. (I remember hearing this on NPR ;-). However, Republicans are convinced of this bias, and keep trying to cut their funding. I used to listen to NPR quite a bit on my commute, and I did think they were to the left. (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, mind you.) I find PBS news coverage more balanced, but a bit dry as well.
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
      I consume NPR as my exclusive broadcast news source and I agree with you. NPR is more often balanced and interesting than the others, but there are times when the liberal bias is glaring. Even if all the stories broadcast are balanced, which is often not the case, there is bias even in story selection; why does NPR always have stories about how sad it is to defund the National Park Service instead of stories about how great it is to reduce the national debt and how much taxation and interest this will save in the long run? Because they'd rather pay more taxes and keep the Park Service alive. A recent example: in a snippet about some magazine's "First Lady Cookie Recipe Cook-off", the invited commentator was a writer for Jezebel.com, a feminist political blog, and while they ostensibly offered a chance for rebuttal, the Jezebel commentator spoke for about a minute and they read the three-words justification from the publisher: "People like it" as a response. One may ask, "Why did they give venue to this commentator, whose opinion is obviously skewed hard to one direction and outside the mainstream concept, and not at least give equal time to someone from Focus on the Family or something?" The answer is, "NPR likes Jezebel more, and wants to promote commentators that will give the audience the perception that this is a sexist/unequal thing".
jgfoot 14y ago
Was the problem that they were "unable to adapt to the new world," or was the problem that they editorially went off the deep end? Readers abandoned Newsweek as Newsweek's quality declined. Perhaps the one drove the other--with fewer readers, it was tougher to fund expensive journalism. But, from the link: "Last November, she featured a cover story about sex addiction, and in May President Obama was shown wearing a rainbow-colored halo with a headline that read ”The First Gay President.”" The Internet didn't do that; Tina Brown did.
- jes5199 14y ago
  I agree. There's some kind of blindspot with traditional media: people say "oh, they couldn't handle the competition from the blogs" but that was only after decades of reducing the local papers into skeleton crews - if your newspaper is little more than a platform for syndicating Reuters stories verbatim then yeah, you're asking to be disrupted.
- nollidge 14y ago
  I'd say they went off the deep end in an attempt to adapt to the new world.
- glhaynes 14y ago
  I've seen so much derision toward them for the First Gay President thing but I don't really understand why. It's an obvious play on First Black President Bill Clinton, made poignant by Obama being the actual first black President. Now, their recent "Heaven is Real" cover on the other hand…

by etrain 14y ago

willholloway 14y ago

I had the exact same childhood experience. Fond memories of sitting on the front porch in summer reading every article. I remember when Time darkened the OJ Simpson cover to make him appear more sinister! Newsweek was on the right side of that one, and soon they will be gone. It was foundational learning, along with Sid Meier's Civilization and Winston Groom's Forest Gump and the sequel Gump & Company. The Gump books are funny enough to keep the attention of a fourth grader, and teach modern American history along the way. We really, really, really have to figure a way to distribute the bounty of our bigger than ever economy a bit better, so professional journalism can continue.

at-fates-hands 14y ago

> the quality of writing had declined, and it had become too political. In my mind it has become way too Liberal. Maybe I didn't realize it when I was growing up and reading it every month, but it certainly has changed. Too bad really, in a time when there's so much opinion pieces and media outlets are all slanted one way or another, it would be nice to have a news organization which simply reported the news and didn't have a vested interest in some political party which slanted its views.

swordswinger12 14y ago
Any magazine that features cover stories from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Niall Ferguson is hardly 'liberal'.
Karunamon 14y ago
I would say public TV and radio is the closest thing to this. ("This" being a mostly balanced media organization) It's impossible to completely eliminate bias though - even absent opinion pieces or editorializing, there's going to be some small level in the stories you choose to cover. *ed Wow, downvotes? Anyone care to rebut instead of click and run?
- cschmidt 14y ago
  I upvoted, since it is lame to downvote just for an honest disagreement of opinion. I think NPR is seen as having a liberal slant. NPR has done some very in depth studies of this, counting liberal stories vs conservative, and determined that there was no bias. (I remember hearing this on NPR ;-). However, Republicans are convinced of this bias, and keep trying to cut their funding. I used to listen to NPR quite a bit on my commute, and I did think they were to the left. (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, mind you.) I find PBS news coverage more balanced, but a bit dry as well.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    I consume NPR as my exclusive broadcast news source and I agree with you. NPR is more often balanced and interesting than the others, but there are times when the liberal bias is glaring. Even if all the stories broadcast are balanced, which is often not the case, there is bias even in story selection; why does NPR always have stories about how sad it is to defund the National Park Service instead of stories about how great it is to reduce the national debt and how much taxation and interest this will save in the long run? Because they'd rather pay more taxes and keep the Park Service alive. A recent example: in a snippet about some magazine's "First Lady Cookie Recipe Cook-off", the invited commentator was a writer for Jezebel.com, a feminist political blog, and while they ostensibly offered a chance for rebuttal, the Jezebel commentator spoke for about a minute and they read the three-words justification from the publisher: "People like it" as a response. One may ask, "Why did they give venue to this commentator, whose opinion is obviously skewed hard to one direction and outside the mainstream concept, and not at least give equal time to someone from Focus on the Family or something?" The answer is, "NPR likes Jezebel more, and wants to promote commentators that will give the audience the perception that this is a sexist/unequal thing".

jgfoot 14y ago

Was the problem that they were "unable to adapt to the new world," or was the problem that they editorially went off the deep end? Readers abandoned Newsweek as Newsweek's quality declined. Perhaps the one drove the other--with fewer readers, it was tougher to fund expensive journalism. But, from the link: "Last November, she featured a cover story about sex addiction, and in May President Obama was shown wearing a rainbow-colored halo with a headline that read ”The First Gay President.”" The Internet didn't do that; Tina Brown did.

jes5199 14y ago
I agree. There's some kind of blindspot with traditional media: people say "oh, they couldn't handle the competition from the blogs" but that was only after decades of reducing the local papers into skeleton crews - if your newspaper is little more than a platform for syndicating Reuters stories verbatim then yeah, you're asking to be disrupted.
nollidge 14y ago
I'd say they went off the deep end in an attempt to adapt to the new world.
glhaynes 14y ago
I've seen so much derision toward them for the First Gay President thing but I don't really understand why. It's an obvious play on First Black President Bill Clinton, made poignant by Obama being the actual first black President. Now, their recent "Heaven is Real" cover on the other hand…