Full article here. Good grief. My father might have described Tina, and probably the writer of this article as well, as one of those pseudo-intellectual pinheads who have too many brains and not enough common sense. Newsweek's fall is because of the zeitgeist? Well, maybe there's possibly a few other, simpler reasons? Perhaps the fact that it's a dinosaur roaming about in a digital age might be a better explanation? Or the fact that print is dying? Put another way, why wait a week for the news when you can have it refreshed every minute or so on your home page? Hm - guess that doesn't sound as cool as blaming the zeitgeist. I'm reminded of the moment Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign for the Dem nomination told a whopper of a lie regarding her trip to Bosnia and how fraught with peril it was, and how someone immediately pulled the film of her landing which showed it wasn't quite as dangerous as she led others to believe. Hillary grew up in a paper press age, unaware of the power of a search engine. When she grew up, finding proof of her lies would have taken months, maybe years, but now it can be researched in mere seconds, and she never realized this. Newsweek is the print version of Hillary Clinton except without the fake concussion. But perhaps another explanation of the fall of this paper tower can be found within the article itself: I could be wrong, but when a magazine takes one political side, the other side isn't going to want to invest heavily in it. I don't know too many conservatives who read Mother Jones on a regular basis, nor would you find many liberals reading The American Spectator. The problem here was that Newsweek wanted it both ways, unlike MJ or TAS which are honest about their political leanings, Newsweek wanted to maintain their aura as an impartial news magazine while still shilling heavily for the Democrats - and failed miserably. And there's so many other magazines out there that do the Liberal Spin far, far better than Newsweek, so why waste your money on a magazine that won't just flat-out say they're in the tank for the Democrats? And I came away from this article thinking something like this: Newsweeks fall - it isn't because print is dying, not because Newsweek has been sort of discredited, not because it's biased, or not because it's news is outdated within a day - no, we have to come up with a sexier reason for it's fall because these other reasons just sound so utterly common. IMHO Newsweek would have lasted a lot longer if they'd actually tried to be impartial. RIP Newsweek. Your thoughts?
Newsweek has ruined its reputation by attacking conservative figures such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann with its obscene cover art and it stooped to the level of the tabloids like the New York Post and recently, the magazine got thinner and thinner and it takes only 10 minutes to read all articles and it does not worth spending five dollars anymore for most of us.
Sorry but I have to economise on the use of capital letters because the shift key makes a creaky noise and I ended up posting like this since I bought a new PC.
Newsweek did not go because of liberal bias, but internet advent. They transitioned from conservative bias to a liberal bias when they were losing traction, because conservatives are more "old time" and still read the newspaper. But when conservatives became tech savvy, the liberal bias did not help and they floundered. It had nothing to do with liberals.
I argued that the internet was a part of it. Your statement is contradictory. If conservatives were luddites, then Newsweek would have benefited from being biased TOWARDS the conservatives who were still using print rather than being on-line.
Newsweek is a (*)(*)(*)(*)-rag of a publication that has fabricated stories for the purpose of sales and agenda setting.
The owner is Barry Diller, San Francisco native and dyed in the wool "limo-liberal" making an average of $295 million a year, and owner of one of the world's largest yachts. It's a left-wing rag. Good riddance.
