primitives discuss slimmed-down Newsweek magazine

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x35726

question everything  (1000+ posts)        Sat Dec-13-08 12:46 AM
Original message
 
DECEMBER 11, 2008

Newsweek to Cut Back Staff, Slim Magazine in Makeover

Newsweek magazine is planning staff cuts as part of a major makeover that is likely to result in a slimmer publication with fewer subscribers and more photos and opinion inside its pages, according to people close to the magazine. The Washington Post Co. business is expected to outline the cuts Thursday in two companywide meetings. They will come from an extension of voluntary buyouts offered in the spring, when Newsweek shed 111 jobs. It isn't clear how many jobs will be eliminated this time, though it won't be nearly as many, say people with knowledge of the plan.

As it continues its shift away from news gathering toward a more provocative, idea-driven editorial approach, Newsweek is also considering other dramatic changes, including significantly reducing its rate base -- the number of weekly copies it promises advertisers it will deliver.

(snip)

Recently, Newsweek has emphasized commentary on hot-button issues, such as gay marriage, by big-name journalists like editor Jon Meacham and international editor Fareed Zakaria, as well as contributions from political operatives and academics like Michael Beschloss and Sean Wilentz. Newsweek is seeking in part to mirror publications like the Economist, which has thrived in a tough market by focusing less on costly news gathering than on driving discussion of the day's issues. Mr. Meacham said recently that Newsweek has never been an objective summarizer of the week's events, or "AP on nicer paper," though he acknowledged a greater emphasis lately on editorializing. "We are trying to be more provocative," he said.

This week's cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," is a case in point. The story spawned an organized campaign to get readers to cancel their subscriptions and elicited so many angry emails that Newsweek Chief Executive Tom Ascheim had to open a new email account to handle the added volume, a company spokesman said.

(snip)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122896472309497261.html (subscription)

Hardrada  (1000+ posts)      Sat Dec-13-08 12:49 AM
Response to Original message

1. Soon people will be getting their news in comic books.

If they "read" at all.

DJ13  (1000+ posts)      Sat Dec-13-08 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
 
2. I hate it when magazines stop trying to provide an improved product

Slimmer always equals less magazine for the same money, and if Im not a subscriber its a real turnoff on the newsstand.

For once I would like to see a magazine actually increase their size as an incentive to buy it (or subscribe).

eilen  (703 posts)      Sat Dec-13-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
 
3. Did you see RollingStone magazine? It's tiny.

Whoa-ho.  What happened to Rolling Stone?

I can remember when Rolling Stone, laid out flat, would cover a twelve-seat dining room table.

It wouldn't even cover a coffee table now, apparently.

question everything  (1000+ posts)        Sat Dec-13-08 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
 
4. I canceled my subscription to Newsweek or, rather, let the subscription expire
precisely because they chose to stop gathering news and to offer, instead, "provocative" ideas.

It started with their January coronation of Obama after he won the Iowa caucuses, an issue that arrived the day of the New Hampshire primaries. All throughout the year they were going after Hillary and Bill, even after the primaries were over. Their reporters appeared on Olbermann trashing Hillary there, too. And then Jonathan Alter who "admitted" that, born in the mid 50s, he felt like a "step generation" to the baby boomers and expressed his hatred (and jealousy) to the older boomers as symbolized by the Clintons (and Al Gore).

I really was going to cancel the subscription but instead let it expired a few months ago. I still get offers for really cheap rates but a few weeks ago the editor, Meacham, was on the Daily Show to promote his book and inserted "Clinton" into his narrative, and I turned the show off.

So I am glad that they are losing subscribers. Yes, there are many who hate the Clintons as much as they do, but they do not subscribe to the print issues but read everything online.

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)      Wed Dec 17th 2008, 05:08 PM
Response to Original message

Take $5 Off!

Over 100 titles on sale for the Holidays
magazines.com

[USA4ME]

What's the chance it will occur to the DUmmies that Newsweek and other various print media are losing subscriptions because fewer and fewer want to read their liberal non-sense?

Zero.

.

[jukin]

Yep, the reason that the MSM is bleeding red is because the editorial bias is just too conservative.

[asdf2231]

I canceled my subscription years ago when they put some Lt's picture who was shouting orders in the middle of a fire fight up over the cover title "So What's Plan B?".

I made sure to talk to a real live person to tell them what a shitty exploitative piece of muckracking that was and never did get the answer as to what they thought the Soldier in question thought of them using his image to undermine the war.

Eff Newsweak in the spleen.

[comradebillyboy]

Yep, the reason that the MSM is bleeding red is because the editorial bias is just too conservative.

IMHO, the modern news media have worked overtime to make themselves irrelevant, no matter what one's politics are. The news shows, papers and magazines have less and less substance every year. What does it say about the MSM when the Daily Show or Colbert Report provide better, more balanced and accurate coverage of current events than the "real" news media.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Sounds like a great plan....for turning into a 'newsish' supplement to The New Yorker.  Which is sucking wind itself.