# Time & Newsweek drop pretense; embrace liberalism as survival strategy! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 22, 2009, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421 "2009-01-22T07:02:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/1 "2009-01-22T07:02:21Z")
[all bolding mine] This from _The Washington Post_ (owns _Newsweek_) itself: _“The rival editors [Rick Stengel, Time; Jon Meacham, Newsweek] are turning out weeklies that are smaller, more serious, **more opinionated and, though they are loath to admit it, more liberal.** **They are pursuing a more elite audience** , in print and on the Web, **abandoning the old Henry Luce notion of catering to the masses.** It is nothing less than a survival strategy.”_ :rolleyes: Yep, a more liberal, more elite audience. Just like we conservatives have been saying all along. The magazines are liberal, and liberals (in the main, **Zoe** ;)) are elitists. Now we have it from the horse’s mouth. \ \*“The magazines are facing the same problems as every other part of the news business: declining revenues, shrinking audiences and a speeded-up digital culture that makes them seem slow.” "One answer is to jettison the old straddle-the-center formula in which the newsweeklies spoke with an institutional voice rather than publish bylines. **Each magazine’s lead columnist – _Time’s_ Joe Klein, _Newsweek’s_ Jonathan Alter – is liberal.** _Newsweek_ has been running columns by Jacob Weisberg, the liberal editor of Slate, another _Post Co._ property. _Newsweek_ also ran a controversial cover last month headlined “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage” – “one of the last great civil rights issues,” Meacham says. And **its top writers appear regularly on liberal talk shows on _MSNBC_** , with which **it has a news partnership**.\* [Link](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/18/AR2009011802181_pf.html) So now, despite years of denial of its existence by the left, liberal bias is coming out in the open and becoming standard operating procedure at two of the nation’s most influential news magazines. But that’s not all - we get yet another dose of liberal elitism to boot: _"Meacham, wearing a dark sweater in his office overlooking Central Park, says that **“we don’t edit with the idea that there is a poor and uninformed reader out there who somehow needs illumination.”** He sees his audience as “the virtual Beltway,” **which he defines as people who watch Sunday talk shows, read newspapers and buy hardcover books."** _ (No lowlife paperback book buyers in _Newsweek’s_ readership, I guess.) So _Newsweek’s_ editor now thinks that dumb, uninformed people who don’t know anything about the issues don’t buy his magazine anyway, so this leaves him with little choice but to abandon his magazine’s alleged mission of objectively reporting the news to the masses in order to slant his coverage toward the overwhelmingly liberal audience that he does have. And this haughty opinion is echoed by the editor at _Time_: _"Stengel, wearing a dark sweater in his office with a view of the Hudson River, **says his philosophy, especially online, is “news for smart people. . . . We are arguably the best-known news brand in the world, and we want to leverage that.”** _ So, _Time_ has also chosen to consider itself a magazine “for smart people”, and given that they have this wonderful reputation around the world as the best news brand, who better to leverage that reputation with than with liberals, who of course are the audience that _Time_ regards as “smart” and therefore most capable of appreciating its reportage. :rolleyes: I gotta tell ya, what a load of hooey! I’ve been roundly chastised around here for naming _ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post_ and _The Los Angeles Times_ as news organizations with an obvious liberal bias, and now two of them are joining with _MSNBC_ in dropping all pretense of objectivity and deciding to start going unapologetically liberal in the thrust of their reportage, columns and editorializing. So that’s three out of eleven, with more surely to follow in the wake of the reportorial orgy that has characterized the coverage of Obama’s run for office and inauguration, and in the apparent belief that enough of the country is simpatico with their liberal views to allow them to get away with it. The reason this is in the Pit rather than GD is because although I would expect that, given that roughly 25% of the entities I’ve named have now gone openly and unapologetically liberal, apologies to me would be appropriate…but the opposite is expected! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/2 "2009-01-22T07:03:22Z")
Well, since reality has a liberal bias, I’d say this is a development to be applauded. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/3 "2009-01-22T07:09:06Z")
Thank you. That was wonderful. NEXT! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/4 "2009-01-22T07:18:48Z")
Of course they’re trying to appeal to a more liberal audience. Because the mass audience is, in fact, more liberal than it was. Because we’re winning. And you’re losing. Let me know if you have any more problems like this one. Glad to help. No, really. Glad. Not just saying that to be polite. ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/5 "2009-01-22T07:20:03Z")
Hey, so there’ll be a huge market for conservative media I guess. Invisible hand of the market and all that. What exactly are you complaining about? Upset about slanted news? Get a journalism degree. Start a blog. Vote with your dollar. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/6 "2009-01-22T07:23:05Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Well, since reality has a liberal bias, I’d say this is a development to be applauded. Actually I don’t think I’ll let this drop after all. The law of the jungle is reality. Conservatism and liberalism are a couple of ideologies whose purpose is to keep it at bay. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/7 "2009-01-22T07:34:18Z")
I dream of seeing Hanutty, Malkin, Hewitt and Beck standing ragged by the freeway entrance with signs saying “Will Lie for Food”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/8 "2009-01-22T07:38:16Z")
I call BS. Both publications have always been full of shit. And George Will is Newsweek’s leading columnist and has been for decades with the quick to turn to back page. They are not liberal publications and are rejected as liberal by this liberal. And just because a conservative and a liberal both don’t like the publications doesn’t mean that they are right, but rather that anyone can see through their BS. Mother Jones and The Nation are liberal publications. Even Reason, the conservative libertarian magazine is more liberal than Newsqueak and Slime, the TV dinners of weekly news magazines. The major news mags do nothing but lie. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/9 "2009-01-22T07:40:44Z")
You did read the whole article, right? > [@](#): > > “I’m not going to be silly about it,” Meacham says. “A lot of people think we’re left of center. I think it depends on the week and the issue. . . . I’m not ideologically driven by any means.” He notes that Barack Obama’s campaign limited cooperation with the magazine when Newsweek ran a cover photo of arugula last spring to symbolize his elitist image. Meacham himself wrote a post-election cover piece on why America is still a center-right nation. > > … > > Stengel, who worked for Bill Bradley’s Democratic presidential campaign, says he has tried conservative columnists – including Bill Kristol, who left – but has not come up with a star. “I get as many complaints from readers that we’re too left as complaints that we’re too right,” he says. “I’m really conscious of trying to be fair and balanced.” And where does this put The Washington Post, for publishing this piece? Are they in bed with the liberals, or are they impartial for having outed them as liberals? I think the rest of your post is a house of cards. So Newsweek is liberal because they’re trying to appeal to the liberal viewers of the liberal Sunday talk shows and the readers of liberal newspapers? And hardcover books are liberal, who knew? An assumption does not prove a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/10 "2009-01-22T07:47:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Of course they’re trying to appeal to a more liberal audience. Because the mass audience is, in fact, more liberal than it was. Because we’re winning. And you’re losing. Funny you should mention this, because I’ve been arsed lately to do a little digging into how things have progressed over the last hundred years or so in this country and have been rather surprised to learn that liberalism, despite the more conservative society that existed then, actually made its greatest gains - and in fact was the dominant ideology - from around the turn of the century up to around 1980. Since that time, we’ve not only halted liberal progress but we’ve actually taken the lead. Prior to the last election, we’ve elected Republican presidents five out of seven times; the philosophies of the New Deal and The Great Society have been largely repudiated; socialism has been all but abandoned, and capitalism has reigned supreme. I would point to the overwhelmingly large pro-Republican vote in 1994, plus the fact that despite all its contretemps the Bush administration was reelected in 2004, plus the rise and huge success of Rush Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and Fox News, as evidence is not only alive and well, but has merely been dealt a momentary setback with the election of Obama, who, despite the country’s dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and the economy, still won the presidency by only 8 percentage points. This tells me that all things being equal, and in light of what people have seen liberalism wreak upon this society over the last fifty years, Americans prefer conservative governance. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/11 "2009-01-22T08:02:06Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > You did read the whole article, right?And where does this put The Washington Post, for publishing this piece? Are they in bed with the liberals, or are they impartial for having outed them as liberals? Yes, I read the whole article but I’m wondering if you did. Perhaps you didn’t notice that _Newsweek_ is _owned_ by the _Washington Post_. So the _Post_ outed itself, probably out of some misplaced sense of pride or simply to acknowledge what is soon to become obvious. > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > And hardcover books are liberal, who knew? An assumption does not prove a fact. Hey, it was Meacham who drew the distinction and who appears to believe that people who buy hardcover books belong to the upscale liberal audience that he’s seeking to reach…or kowtow to, as the case may be. At any rate, he’s the one who made the distinction in the context of pandering to a liberal readership, not me. > [@The Second Stone](#): > > I call BS. Both publications have always been full of shit. And George Will is Newsweek’s leading columnist and has been for decades with the quick to turn to back page. They are not liberal publications and are rejected as liberal by this liberal. No, up to now they haven’t been ‘liberal’ publications; they have been pro-liberal publications that at least made an effort to appear ‘institutional’, as they put it. Now it appears they, like MSNBC, are dropping all pretense and actively seeking to present and appeal to the liberal point of view. In other words, they intend to _become_ liberal magazines, where, technically, they aren’t now. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/12 "2009-01-22T08:14:04Z")
[deleted - Forget it, Jake, its Chinatown] ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/13 "2009-01-22T08:20:06Z")
I just 'splained it, **luce**. If you can’t tell the difference between a magazine that subliminally or subtly presents a pro-liberal type of coverage from one that espouses it openly, I don’t know how else to describe it. ETA: luci asked and then deleted a question while I was composing the answer. He asked what the difference was between a pro-liberal magazine and a liberal one (and what I meant by ‘technically’). He then (quite untypically for him :D) claimed not to know what I was talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/14 "2009-01-22T08:24:13Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Yes, I read the whole article but I’m wondering if you did. Perhaps you didn’t notice that _Newsweek_ is _owned_ by the _Washington Post_. > > So the _Post_ outed itself, probably out of some misplaced sense of pride or simply to acknowledge what is soon to become obvious. So the Washington Post owns Newsweek, so what? That does not mean that they speak with a single editorial voice. Accusing a news organization of bias is a means of discrediting it. If the Post is so inextricably entwined with this liberal cabal, how can you trust this very article? If they had run a story saying that Newsweek and Time were completely unbiased, would you accept that at face value? > [@](#): > > Hey, it was Meacham who drew the distinction and who appears to believe that people who buy hardcover books belong to the upscale liberal audience that he’s seeking to reach…or kowtow to, as the case may be. At any rate, he’s the one who made the distinction in the context of pandering to a liberal readership, not me. Where? Where in that article does Jon Meacham say that he is pursing a liberal readership? > [@](#): > > Meacham, wearing a dark sweater in his office overlooking Central Park, says that “we don’t edit with the idea that there is a poor and uninformed reader out there who somehow needs illumination.” He sees his audience as “the virtual Beltway,” which he defines as people who watch Sunday talk shows, read newspapers and buy hardcover books. He is targeting readers who also consume other sources of information. The only one claiming that that equates to liberals is you. > [@](#): > > they intend to _become_ liberal magazines, where, technically, they aren’t now. So your past accusations of bias were incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/15 "2009-01-22T08:27:22Z")
Well, yes, \*technically \*incorrect. These are very, very fine points of distinction, best left to the experts. Its too many for me, I fold. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/16 "2009-01-22T08:45:57Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > So the Washington Post owns Newsweek, so what? That does not mean that they speak with a single editorial voice. I never said it did. You asked why the _Post_ was outing them if the _Post_ was so liberal. I pointed out that in publishing that piece they were outing themselves, and probably for self-serving reasons, i.e, to acknowledge what was soon to become obvious. That its subsidiary publication and was about to become noticeably more liberal in its content, as was its own competitor, _Time_. > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Accusing a news organization of bias is a means of discrediting it. If the Post is so inextricably entwined with this liberal cabal, how can you trust this very article? Because you start with a false premise. Bias does not equat to untruthfulness. It can very easily consist of stressing positive facts one way and negative facts the other. Either way, they’re being truthful, even if one side comes out looking bad and the other good and noble. > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Where? Where in that article does Jon Meacham say that he is pursing a liberal readership? Whassamatta you? :smack: That’s only one of the two main points of the article. (The other being that these changes are made necessary in order for the magazines to survive. I’m wondering if they wouldn’t be having an easier time of it now if they hadn’t alienated their conservative readership, even though eventually they’d fade anyway like most other publications seem to be doing here in the internet age. Still, it would be better for them to already have the conservative readership they’ve driven off, rather than trying to entice a new liberal readership that it doesn’t have now and will take time to develop.) > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > He is targeting readers who also consume other sources of information. No, he said he was targeting people who buy ‘hardback’ books. Like I said. > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > The only one claiming that that equates to liberal is you. The article says he’s making the publication a liberal one, and he said he wants to appeal to ‘hardback’ book purchasers. There’s a reason he made that distinction, and was not that he wanted to appeal to generic ‘consumers of information’. > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > So your past accusations of bias were incorrect? Hardly. There’s bias and then there’s outright embracement of ideology. They were biased and now it appears they’re going for a full-on bear hug – you know, like _MSNBC_ has already done. It’s really not hard to make the distinction. ETA: And now, given that I have no pending questions, I think I’ll say goodnight. So, uh…goodnight. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/17 "2009-01-22T09:07:33Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I never said it did. You asked why the _Post_ was outing them if the _Post_ was so liberal. No. I assume nothing about the bias of the Washington Post. I am asking you if publication of this piece establishes the Post as liberal (because of their ownership association with Newsweek), or distances them from it (by reporting on their sister publication). > [@](#): > > Whassamatta you? :smack: That’s only one of the two main points of the article. > > … > > No, he said he was targeting people who buy ‘hardback’ books. Like I said. The article says he’s making the publication a liberal one, and he said he wants to appeal to ‘hardback’ book purchasers. There’s a reason he made that distinction, and was not that he wanted to appeal to generic ‘consumers of information’. The author of this article (given as “Howard Kurtz - Washington Post Staff Writer”) alleges that the newmagazines are to become more liberal. He states it one time, and last among the four changes that the magazines are making. You are the one who bolded the other assertions about their target audience. You are the one using Sunday talk shows and hardback books as evidence of liberalism. You attribute this view to Jon Meacham, when, in the article, he says no such thing. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/18 "2009-01-22T09:25:54Z")
If it makes you feel better to call newsweek liberal, then by all means be my guest. I know how it feels, since I’ve been screeching about conservatives on the radio since forever. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/19 "2009-01-22T09:26:01Z")
My dear **Starving Artist** , thank you for excluding me from the label of _elitist_. You make me feel so special. > [@](#): > > **Starving Artist** : So now, despite years of denial of its existence by the left, liberal bias is coming out in the open and becoming standard operating procedure at two of the nation’s most influential news magazines. I think you misread that. They _didn’t_ have a liberal bias in the past. That’s something you _thought_ that you saw. They are going “to jettison the old straddle-the-center formula” as they put it." They’re going to stop writing for the masses and begin writing for the smart people. Now that should _appeal_ to you. It would at the very least make it more worthy of debate. “The _Times_ they are a changin’…” (and the _Newsweeks_ too.) ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/20 "2009-01-22T10:18:29Z")
Yesterday’s liberal ideals are today’s status quo. That’s just the way progress works. Even knuckle-draggers like **Starving Artist** probably (probably) _currently_ hold many of the views that progressives were fighting for a long, long, LONG time ago. Views like-- slavery is an abomination, women should be allowed to vote, forcing children to work in sweatshops is wrong, etc. etc. They’re a century or two behind, but hey–we can’t all be Barack Obama! Maybe Time and Newsweek are just trying to get ahead of the curve, Maybe they don’t see the profit anymore in appealing to yahoos. Maybe they realized that there isn’t much ad-revenue to be had from chastity-belt manufacturers and buggy-whip companies. Maybe they are just trying to appeal to people who still read–people who prefer to get their news from sources other than the vibrations in their tooth fillings. Look… Time and Newsweek are both still rags, but maybe they are attempting to raise their standards. Even dumb-fucks can appreciate their attempt to better themselves. Can’t they? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421.md?page=2)