Actually, they alternate wth WIll and that one liberal lady, though its not always as regular as one-on, one -off. And despite what you say, I think Newsweek is certainly more oriented toward the dems than the pubs. Time hugs the center, although they are pretty bland about it.
I’d characterize Time as moderately-right-of-center, and Newsweek as slightly-left-of-Time.
Neither of them would come anywhere close to qualifying for the role of “liberal media,” however. You’ve gotta turn to the freakin’ comics to come close these days…
I can’t vouch for the overall quality, but the few times I’ve read The Atlantic Monthly, I’ve been very impressed. Surprisingly in-depth articles – at first I thought it was a similar model to Newsweek et al. so I expected articles to go for no longer than two pages and be mostly pictures, Instead, the damn things just keep going! Page after page after page, but smart and good so it’s OK. Their fiction is top notch too.
Anna Quindlen, for those keeping score at home.
That’s her name. Either way, their deliberately moderate IMHO, with leanings one way or the other. Newsweek certainly doesn’t like Bush. Not sure about US News- never read it.
But yes, their bigest problem is that they pretend to be neutral when they really aren’t. And its OK not to be neutral - someone who’s neutral has no angle or interest. It’s beter to say, “Here is where I stand and what I think and why.” That’s why I don’t mind Anna Quindlen, even if she is an EVIL LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO SCUM ™. 
Thanks; thanks a lot. I went to the bookstore last night to pick up a copy of The Week. Just the magazine, that’s all.
But then I found Ray Bradbury novel I hadn’t read; and a collection of Stephen King short stories and had to have, remembering Different Seasons; and then something new by the guy who wrote Neuromancer.
So, $43 later, out I walk. And yeah, I did get The Week, but Mrs. Genghis has claimed it so I haven’t had a chance at it yet.
But . . . damn! A new Bradbury! He’s a writer who makes me glad to be alive, just so I can read his stuff!
A yeaer ago, I subscribed to TIME, so that I could get a generic Palm Pilot knock off. The knock off is fine, but I did not renew my sub b/c TIME reads like a GOP party pamphlet. I now get Newsweek–but I find it facile and shrill.
I do get alot from the New Yorker–and the Internet. Thanks for the link to The Week. I also check out the Guardian–especially for international news. If I knew how to link here, I would for you!
And what is with all the religion on all these covers? TIME must have done at least 6 religious cover stories last year alone–unfortunately, they were not educational ones about Islam or Judaism or Hinduism–it was daVinci code crap etc. And the Nativity–now there is breaking, urgent news…
Rigby, thanks for your participation. You can find a whole page about coding under “User CP” in the blue bar. But if you slap down a link on the page, usually it will go through.
Yeah, though, what’s with the Jesus stories? About 10 times a year all three mags run,
WHO WAS THE REAL JESUS?
How much has our knowledge increased since the last time you ran the story a year ago? Pretty cynical shit.
I don’t read Time or Newsweek, but I subscribe to U.S. News & World Report. Although the magazine has the unfortunate business practice of providing the magazine in its entirety for free on the internet, it’s a very good publication. No, it is not written in a fifth grade reading level. But no, it is not written using obscure words that 99.9% of the population doesn’t know (or lies about knowing, or used a thesaurus to find out about.)
I think William F. Buckley’s columns prove that being able to throw out very good (or unique) grammar and mix in strange and unusual words does nothing to further a point or even make the author look more intelligent.
News editorial magazines aren’t written to be pieces of literature. Each story is supposed to give some more in depth information on a topic than you will get in a news blurb on the internet or a short segment on the nightly news. In fact I rarely see articles on the internet that go as in depth as articles in U.S. News.
Sure, I can find lots of in depth articles on the internet, but many of them are just very long opinion pieces that don’t seem to have any actual factual basis, and the others are the rare piece that some online news source (CNN.com, CSM.com, et al.) will put out.
The fact that you have a membership with a semi-communist and completely unreliable and terribly managed website like Salon really makes your pathetic little rant quite ironic. You’re complaining about receiving good journalism with your subscription to one of the shittiest sources of information you could ever find.
I take an extremely low view of people that put so much faith in the internet. Anyone who has ever done any serious academic research can tell you how quickly useless the internet is rendered by the fact that it almost never goes in depth to the degree necessary to do serious study. Sometimes it does, 95% of the time it does not. Or you have to pay to get at the information.
The internet is great at giving you a cursory bit of information on a great many things, but on just about any topic it can’t give you the depth you need to gain true understanding. That even applies to the news, there are many issues where the .5-1 page of text you get in your average online news article will leave you woefully uninformed. For comparison the average WSJ (I subscribe to this as well) article is probably 5-8 times as long as the average CNN.com or Washingtonpost.com article.
Furthermore printed news media, whether it be magazines, journals, or newspapers still have a very important use. The local newspaper is essential since the internet doesn’t tend to put this information out near as well and people in local regions typically don’t have a centralized online “news hub” they can go to for their area (or at least one that is worth a damn.) And then most people interested in certain aspects of local news won’t even think to look on the internet for it in the first place.
And of course when riding the subway or something the internet isn’t going to be of much use to you. Furthermore unless you have a wireless router (and many people do not) you can’t sit comfortably on your porch and read up on world events on the net.
Plus there is the fact that it’s just plain unhealthy to spend too much time using the computer every day.
I think the only thing that is useless trash in this thread is the OP.
Martin -I agree with some of what you are saying, but to me, the biggest problem is the dumbing down of even print journalism at this point.
Where is the intelligent, balanced commentary? Hell, where is the balanced, complete story–the just the facts, m’am? I don’t even really need the balanced part–but then the source should show its spots: if you are pro-conservative, state that and vice versa. Then state your case and let me judge on the merits of your points. I may not agree with the position, but I should come away with an understanding of the thought process/values construct that undergirds the position. (I don’t mean you here, I mean the journalistic sources).
That happens only rarely at this point. William F. Buckley is an ass–and a pompous one at that. To me he represents someone who is completely out of touch with society today–but sometimes he’s good for his un-intentional humor.
I also agree, partly, with the Internet remarks. It depends on where you go and also what your focus is. For facts, I stick with reputable newpaper sites, for opinions, I go to blogs.
Why can’t a Communist have a valid POV? I am not familiar with Salon, but to me it just sounds like you don’t care for their position–fair enough.
Nothing, to my mind, beats sitting on my front porch with the Sunday edition in my hands. I *like * the “handedness” of a paper, the weight, size and spread of it. Reading off the 'puter is not the same and I find I take in info differently online.
I am only 42, but already I can see the sea change ahead. Someday, and soon, local news will be reliably available online. IMO, books and mags will always have a place, but the proportions of the market will change drastically.
Sorry, I’ve digressed a bit. My concern, and it’s a big one, is that the number of sources for reliable, factual info is shrinking–to be replaced by shrill punditry and spin-on both “sides”.