Of that entire insightful post, you take one point and ignore everything else? Seriously, Curtis? Read this thread and come back with cognizant arguments. And if you can’t, then reconsider your opinion. You may not actually be right all the time.
I agree with the rest of the post.
My vote: www.spectator.co.uk
Hey… I read that issue of Time – we picked up a free subscription somewhere. But I didn’t see that ad! I feel cheated. Now I’ll need to go back and find it.
The issue did have an interesting article on human longevity, though.
:smack:
Curtis, I’ve got a book I’d like to recommend you. PM me if you want more details.
You’ve got a lot to learn about degenerate behavior.
Justine, perhaps? 
Tell me about it. That issue where they put Milton Friedman (Milton Friedman!) in a two-piece scarred me for years.
Fun with Dick and Jane*.
Just be glad you didn’t see ol’ Milt in the October '78 issue of Taint Magazine.
Except that my point was that Time magazine spoke for the party in power in the 50s in the same way that Fox spoke for the party in power in 2000s. They conveyed the sense that the administration was correct in its policies, decisions, and appointments and blunted the opposition’s view. That is a very close parallel. It’s the definition of the establishment that changed over time. Even that change is somewhat exaggerated. The party in power has enormous influence over the power structure in official Washington, so for those eight years the Bush viewpoint was the establishment and Fox - the only channel allowed on the tv’s in the White House - was its court reporter.
It’s nice of you to say this, but you’ll pardon me if I consider it small praise. I’ve spent three times your lifespan researching the history of the media in the country. I cannot believe you have sufficient knowledge of Time’s history to give any kind of opinion as to my post’s correctness.
You’ll have to take my word that I have great empathy for your precociousness. You will also have to take my word that many kinds of understanding can only be possible through time, either by living through change or having had the opportunity to do years on concentrated study. History, culture, sex, decadence, all the subjects of this thread, are understandable only in layers, not as a snapshot. There are many prodigies in history but no great 13-year-old historians or novelists have ever appeared. Those two sentences are intimately related.
Argent Towers, I think we all know what your favorite book is, and if that’s what you are planning to recommend to young Curtis, I want to state that I think it’s REALLY REALLY inappropriate for you to do so. I hope you give this a second thought (or third or fourth or whatever it takes) before you do, especially in a private message.
Or even the automotive magazines bit. Are people who are interested in the latest automotive technology somehow less educated than Time readers and/or somehow more prone to the “terrible” lures of the female body?
Are you sure that’s a book you want to recommend to a 13-year-old?
I’m pretty sure the OP is already familiar with the Bible.
Should we tell him about the hidden penises in the ice cubes?
You made me choke on my salad.
As a good conservative, The Economist is for thinking people. Time is jingoistic crap and has been since at least the 70s. And that is when it is good. You wanna find out what the lefties are thinking? Then Mother Jones, but I warn you, it is really boring and condescending, but they do their fact checking. The Christian Science Monitor is my idea of an ideal newspaper: a mission to inform and not make profits. The profit motive in journalism leads to The Swimsuit Issue and Ice Cream surveys. I like bikinis and ice cream, but not in place of news.
The Christian Science Monitor is excellent, especially for foreign affairs coverage.
I used to subscribe to Time for years. I stopped when in December 2001, they did not have Osama Bin Laden as “Newsmaker of the Year”. Which he certainly was. It was a gutless move. Bin Laden certainly caused the biggest news story of 2001. Time put Hitler on as a previous newsmaker, so it wouldn’t be the first time a terrible person was noted as such. Now I understand there would have been howls of outrage from people who did not understand that it would not be an “honouring” of him, but come on. Bin Laden was certainly the newsmaker of 2001.
No more subscription to Time for me.
It’s Person of the Year, even though some of the honorees were not people.