Some of my facorite magazines were funded by classified advertising (mostly job adds) and cigarette advertising.
I’m too young to have enjoyed the classic age of print literature, before films and TV, but I’m old enough to have seen the death of an industry funded by cigarette companies, the slow strangulation of job-ad fundend magazines, and the lingering death of magazines replaced by the internet.
There are some good technology magazines out there still. I get Technology Review for free since I am an MIT alumnus, and donate. While it is a bit heavy on the “Best 50 entrepreneurs under 14” kind of articles, it is still pretty good, and the latest issue on AI is maybe the best set of articles on this subject I’ve seen. I get IEEE Spectrum free also now that I am a Life (read geezer) IEEE member. Not as general, but still high quality.
Yeah I agree. And even those magazines that rely less on timely reporting face tough competition from online sources such as Quartz, NY Magazine, FiveThirtyEight, Vox, Reason.com…
I think less and less people will be inclined to buy magazines since they can look them up on the internet (if the same content is available online), or borrow them from a public library, or look for similiar, but free content somewhere else
(my bold)
(Film, as in - starting back in the 1910’s?)
Gosh forbid anyone at this site being old enough to.
At least it’s a little reassuring a number of the aforementioned mags will continue on online once their paper version meets the choir invisible, despite myself being a magaziney old school type, and will definitely miss some of them when they go.
::wondering if Playboy still bothers with the brown paper covering for mailing::
(crazy parents, back in the day)
Can confirm they still do, but it’s actually a black plastic bag the magazine is wrapped in with just the Playboy logo and mailing address visible.
I was passing by the magazine rack in the grocery store I work at the other day when I discovered that OMNI Magazine is back.
That’s one mag I would never have expected to see get a revival, and I’ll probably have to check it out to see how it compares to the vintage stuff.
I really enjoy the Oxford American when I can find it, especially the annual music issue.
Not sure if I’m being whooshed…and I know nothing of the other two magazines…but the Economist, despite its name, is the antithesis of “specialized.” Its writers cover arts, sciences, human and social geographies of all sorts, and more with equal fervor.
The Spectator and New Statesman are, though independent of parties and not necessarily following party lines and agendas, broadly house journals for Conservatives and Labour, with shifts in personality over the decades. Boris Johnson edited the Spectator for some years.
You might be interested in Prospect, less identifiable wit.h a particular political focus.
I tried out some free magazine subs recently. Wired was one of them. Egad, what a mess. The jokes about the appalling unreadability from decades ago still hold. (There was the mock Wired in Cryptonomicon called Turing. 1999.) Literally unreadable. It’s all about “style”. The articles are crap. The ads are for high end products like luxury watches, etc. This is a magazine for show, nothing more. Put it on your coffee table. Impress the easily impressed.
The other magazines were generally clearly dying as well. The only one that is sometimes of interest is New York Magazine. (Note: no “-er”.) Some pretty good articles about politics and the environment. But then a lot, sometimes a whole issue, on NYC “cultural” nonsense.
As noted, it’s the general interest magazines that are decaying. The more specialized a mag can be, the better chances it has. Ad folk love targeting. Big circulation numbers add up to nothin’.
Still have yet to hear a substantial critique of the current New Yorker, other than it being “thin”.
Go for it.
OK, I’ll take a shot. I’ve been a subscriber since 1983, so I’ve read a few issues.
My quibbles are going to seem minor, and maybe they are. The writing is still top notch, and the content of the articles substantive and meaningful.
However, I miss all the little filler items that once were ubiquitous and often very amusing (‘Block That Metaphor’, for example).
I think the quality of the movie reviews has deteriorated, with the exception of Anthony Lane. Yes, I still miss Pauline.
My biggest beef, though, is the decrease in the quality of the cartoons. I rarely see brilliance anymore; more often than not my response is ‘meh’ after ‘meh’.
That said, I still look forward to each issue.
mmm
I like the new Yorker but its fiction always leaves me cold …
That.
For a brief spell in the 90’s there was a film reviewer named Daphne Merkin whom I thought did a pretty good job. She was there only briefly and I hope her departure wasn’t due to her apparently debilitating depression.
Probably a subjective call - in most issues I’ll find one or two that I’ll place somewhere site-specific in my apartment. My current faves are Steed, Kanin, Bliss, Diffy, Sipress, Dator, Chitty, and oldies like Chast, Mankoff, Cheney, Cullum, Vey.
There’s still a once-in-a-blue-moon Constabulary Notes From All Over, or a goofy little newspaper faux pas, but yeah, those are few and far between now.
I hear ya, with their (in?)famous unresolved endings - they’re usually the last thing I might read in an issue, if at all.
Why did you quote me??? 
The only thing missing is the really long articles, no doubt due to the reduction in editorial pages because of the lack of advertising. The three part article on finding and identifying bodies from WW II is considered, I read, the epitome of weird New Yorker articles - but I loved it. Still, I bet many would be too long for today’s readers.
These were called newsbreaks, and I miss them too. I understand E B White was the master of the newsbreak.
Roz Chast is right up there with the greats of old. I went to an exhibition of her work at the Jewish Museum in San Francisco - amazing. But I bet we remember the very best of the old cartoons and not the rest. I do need to go through my CDs which have them all up to a few years ago.
I still get The New Yorker and it’s still worth the subscription price, a good mix of everything, I even read the listings at the beginning even though I rarely go to NYC.
I’m definitely aging out of whatever music coverage they do in actual articles. They still do some good long pieces, love that there’s no page jumps. They seem to go in phases with certain coverage of foreign areas I give zero fucks about like Africa and the Middle East and Afghanistan.
I almost gave my mother a gift subscription last time I renewed, but The New Yorker has almost as many fucks as Deadwood these days.
I get Harper’s which is a good mix, and The Atlantic, which I’m going to drop because it’s mostly political and there’s really nothing new left to say at this point. And of the stuff that’s not political, they’ve had a LOT of overlap with The New Yorker lately.
I got New York magazine for a couple of years and liked it, but there’s only so much room.
Still get Vanity Fair cause it’s cheap and fun and occasionally has something really good mixed in with the hagiography.
I wouldn’t pay for anything online, there isn’t anything worth any money except NYT and WaPo and you can get all you can eat of those for free.
Perhaps I misread your post, then. I got the impression that you felt that the New Yorker is not a magazine that is “sometimes of interest”, and I was curious as to why.
Three of my favorite magazines have stopped publications:
Computer Shopper stopped in 2009
Wizard: The Comics Magazine stopped in 2011
PC World stopped in 2013
All three went through numerous revisions and revamps in their last ten years of existence.
I still subscribe to* Popular Science* even though they have revamped their format numerous times in 30 plus years I’ve subscribed to them
wow I’m surpised the wizard lasted that long after the comic book crash …