Does this mean we won’t be seeing eleven cover stories a year on “What Was Jesus Really Like?”
Shame. Gonna miss that… really.
Time and Newseek are left of center. This is news?
Regards,
Shodan
But what have done for us lately? Oh, crap…
starving artist, allow me to introduce you to WORLD Magazine.
No pretense to objectivity here- conservative & Christian, maybe too much, but damned informative.
Yeah, because smart people wouldn’t be interested in that?
Doesn’t matter- the bulk of “experts” they get are heretics & apostates anyway.
I might be mistaken, but don’t Conservatives believe that private businesses making a profit is a good thing?
I guess SA secretly want the media to have some sort of centrally placed comissar in every media outlet to preserve the Political Balance. Oh well.
I’m still waiting for them to drop the pretense that they report news.
Interesting, you take an observation that two magazines have become marginalized and have, therefore, changed their policy, and pretend that this is an admission that they have always been “liberal.”
(And, of course, you ignore the fact that they really have been marginalized in the last few years and make a claim that they are among the “most influential” magazines extant–which is rather like saying that Intrepid International is among the foremost buggy whip manufacturers. They have little to no impact on the actual views of news by the overwhelming majority of citizens or decision makers.)
I guess congratulations are in order that you finally found someone “admitting” that some tiny portion of the news media has a liberal slant. What next? A confession that the WSJ has a conservative bias?
This is a joke, yes? Your funny second paragraph does not follow from the first.
Damn those bastards, why won’t they write magazines for people who don’t read magazines? It’s so WRONG!*
This is a contradiction in terms.
And there’s why these magazines are irritating and useless. Here’s a crazy freaking idea - try analyzing what’s going on instead of telling your readers what to say about what’s going on when they get into arguments!
*No, really, that’s what this is about. People are getting more and more news from the Web and the magazines are trying to go where the readers are.
I don’t like biased news at all, but I think it’s disingenuous for Starving Artist or anybody else to be shocked, SHOCKED that two magazines are leaning left when talk radio has leaned right for decades. Unless that doesn’t count for some reason. The increased partisanship isn’t a good thing, but it’s not going away. That’s where the news came from before the standard of objectivity, impossible though valuable, came around. People like being told what they already know.
An outrage!
See, people, things like the OP are why we need the Fairness Doctrine back posthaste. SA, thanks for shining a light on this for us. We’ve got letters to write… let’s move it move it move it!
Talk radio doesn’t pretend to be unbiased.
But you aren’t being consistent. If it is not OK for talk radio to lean right, why don’t you object when Time and Newsweek (and CBS and NBC and ABC, and the New York Times and the Washington Post and PBS and the LA Times - and the SDMB) lean left?
Regards,
Shodan
When the tide of public opinion turns thunderously against you, who else can you blame but the media that put ideas in their head? You certainly can’t blame yourself…
Since everyone else has done a pretty good job addressing the rest of your post, I’ll just ask… why the fuck do you keep parroting this “liberals are elitists” meme?
It doesn’t make any fucking sense at all.
We want a more equal distribution of incomes. We want more equal access to education. We want equal rights. How very elitist of us. :rolleyes:
Because these are closet reverse-elitists who are concerned about all the pobes in the world. It’s Compassionate Conservatives that say, “Fuck em. Let them starve.”
-Joe
True. On the other hand, the hosts pretend to be telling it like it is.
I’m being consistent: I said “I don’t like biased news at all,” which I believe constitutes an objection. I made no exceptions; I’m just resigned to this being the current trend in what used to be called the news. I don’t like what Newsweek is doing here, but this is the way it’s going right now. As I said, people love being told what they already know. Rush made his name as a rightwing commentator on the radio and spawned many imitators, Fox News got big, and more recently you see the rise of MSNBC on the left, and there are pundits and bloggers aplenty on both sides. If Newsweek is throwing in the towel and giving into the same kind of partisanship, that’s disappointing but not surprising. They’re going where the readers are. I don’t think it’s a good thing for the public, but the public wants what it wants. (Of course, the public doesn’t trust journalism either. They’re all biased, you know. :p)
There’s a certain level of irony here in that the right has sowed distrust of journalists for years because they’re all sneaky lefties [as seen your standard “MSM is biased!” parenthetical], but now these two publications are being more open about their biases and Starving Artist says that shows you can’t trust any of them.
I don’t think the media leans left as a whole. The SDMB does, but that’s a separate animal and isn’t related.
Aaaaaah!
Closet reverse-elitists!
grabs NASCAR bumper sticker and cowers under desk
(BTW… did you mean plebes? Pobes sounds… kinda… snicker)
Actually, that’s pretty much the point of the thing to begin with. Newsfeeds have become commoditized, so Time and Newsweek can’t effectively differentiate themselves on the basis of reporting news. So they’re explicitly moving to more of a “news analysis” role.
The only thing in the OP that surprises me is the claim that Time is “the best known news brand in the world.”
:rolleyes:
I have thought of Time as being mostly fluff for decades, now. For news other magazines do a lot better presenting news with background and history.
So, what, “The No-Spin Zone” is just supposed to be a catchy title?