I do not buy your magazine, and I now never will.
I walk through the supermarket and a big picture of Lara Croft. Well, an issue dedicated to how video games have changed America and the entertainment industry.
Neat!
And what is this?! A special exclusive official DOOM III preview!!! Be still my beating heart! I quickly turn to the page where it is located. Hmm… No preview here, just an article on the history of video games. Oh, It is part of the article! quickly turns to page indicated
blinks
One picture?
It is one picture?
That does not take up even a fourth of the page?
ONE F#@&%ING PICTURE IS NOT A PREVIEW!!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!!! THIS IS NOTHING (well, it does show the chainsaw) NOTHING!! THIS IS NOT A GOD DAMNED PREVIEW! DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A PREVIEW IS?? HERE, LET ME LOOK IT UP FOR YOU.
Main Entry: 1pre·view
Pronunciation: 'prE-"vyü
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1607
1 : to see beforehand; specifically : to view or to show in advance of public presentation
2 : to give a preliminary survey of
pre·view·er /-"vyü-&r/ noun
WHERE IS THE SURVEY YOU LOSERS!!!
LIARWHORELIARWHORELIARWHORELIARWHORELIARWHORE
LIARWHORELIARWHORELIARWHORELIARWHORELIARWHORE!!!
(edited to break up the liarwhores and preserve the left-right flow. – Uke)
The one thing in that magazine that was fairly amusing on a regular basis…the final page devoted to entertainment headlines of that week fifty years ago, or fifteen, or five (Lucille Ball wins Emmy! “All in the Family” premieres on CBS! Paul McCartney busted in Japan for weed!)…seems to be gone now.
Replaced with a full-page weekly “humorous essay” by the juvenile fucktard Joel Stein, of all people.
I’ve always gotten this rag for free gratis, due to having worked for Time-Warner for a long time, but they’ve decided to retract these expensive freebies for the laid-off stiffs and sent me a letter saying I’d have to start paying for it.
I’m pretty tired of how all magazines are getting to look the same these days. They all have hot women on the cover 90% of the time, they all have cute little “features” sprinkled throughout that are just a paragraph long and convey little to no real information. They all run the same stories on the same crap (how many times have you seen TIME and Newsweek have the exact same cover story?)
I’m about ready to start looking overseas for good readin’. The Economist, here I come.
But as far as entertainment media goes, I always thought Entertainment Weekly had a little more credibility than a lot of other magazines. At least they don’t relentlessly brownose celebrities like People and US magazine do.
Ahhhh, you must have missed the annual “100 Most Powerful People in Entertainment” issues! That’s some fine ass-kissin’ there!
Also, EW (such a perfect acronym!) and People are both owned by AOL-Time-Warner. So if EW wanted to insert its editorial nose into, say, Tom Cruise’s bunghole, People would first have to remove its own, to make room.
I do believe it is a preview. You are seeing it beforehand. And you got the survey. Survey, in this case, means “to look at.” Were you expecting a survey in the “Look at that!” sense of the word, or in the “Do you like beans? Do you like George Wendt?” sense of the word? You got the former. Therefore, it is a preview in the every sense of the word.
Let’s not forget Jim Mullun’s hot sheet, or warm sheet, or ice cold sheet, or crap only his brainless tapier-defiling aye-aye-jizzstain self cares about sheet.
It’s also strange how newspapers often carry the same stories on their front page as other newspapers. It’s almost as if both papers considered the same event the most important thing that happened on the previous day.
I mean, who would have thought that something considered newsworthy by one magazine could be considered newsworthy by a totally different magazine? It’s defies belief.
Except we’re talking about weekly newsmagazines, not newspapers, as you alluded to in your post. With a whole WEEKS worth of news to pick from, TIME and Newsweek pick the same story at least 70% of the time. It’s as if neither has the courage to think originally.
