Lately, I’ve been more and more obsessed with keeping up with the news. I’ve noticed that both of these magazines tend to be somewhat biased, but it’s hard for me to pin down exactly what they’re biases are towards, and what the different biases are. The only ones I can nail down specifically are a bias towards the companies (Microsoft/AOL-Time Warner) that own them. Anyone have insight, personal opinions, or other fun comments?
You have to go with Newsweek. Time has not political cartoons. 
Last I looked (which was just now – http://www.washpostco.com/ – ), Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post Company, not Microsoft.
I only read them in the dentist’s waiting room, so I’m probably suffering from some sort of negative conditioning, but Time and Newsweek are much of a muchness, to me.
One noticeable “bias” (if you’re accustomed to reading non-American mags like the Economist) is the sheer US-centricity. Nearly every foreign story has some not-very-subtle allusion to US greatness and influence, carefully crafted to make Mr and Mrs America feel good. Irellevant references to African tribesmen drinking Coke, Chinese going to McDonalds - that sort of thing.
Stick to the Economist.
Exapno - Are you sure? Their address is an MSNBC one, so that’s why I figured…
I subscribed to both for a while, but eventually dropped Newsweek because it impressed me as being (a) somewhat slanted conservatively, and (b) oversimplifying issues (at least, moreso than Time was).
They’re definitely American-centric, but given that they’re American news magazines, I expect that.
I used to read both magazines from time to time. I was often irritated by their tunnel-vision American perspective, but thought they had some merit.
However, I soon saw a problem. When they did a piece on my own country, the content was usually crap - superficial and full of stereotypes. This made me think, “Hey, if they write superficial crap about the country I know well, what are they feeding me about the ones I don’t know well?”
Now, if I want a serious international news magazine, I read the Economist. It has its biases too (socialists need not apply), but it is more open about its views and make a serious attempt at objectivity.
BTW, the Economist is badly named. I used never read it, thinking it was some kind of professional journal for economists. In fact, it is a high quality news journal. It beats the socks off Time and Newsweek.
Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post, but has agreements with MSNBC. I’ve been a reader for decades and like its coverage overall.
For international news, I subscribe to the World Press Review.
I read both Time and Newsweek and have read, off and on, both the Economist and the World Press Review. I can’t stand U. S. News and World Report, which truly does have a set of conservative biases that interferes with quality coverage.
The strengths of both Time and Newsweek lie in their in-depth coverage of insider politics, which is what their major audience is interested in. Despite the bleatings of ideologues on both sides, I find that they are generally respectful of the presidency but love to pounce on screw-ups.
It’s certainly true that they are US-centric, but again, so is their audience. They are well in tune with the wants and desires of their main readership, so they can’t be expected to change.
They’re gone the same route as the network news shows of late, adding far more “back-of-the-book” features, especially on health and money, but also on the way of the world (both did cover stories on teen girls, for example). These are usually extremely superficial, but I’m not sure where you would go for insightful coverage of teen girls for a mass audience.
Their entertainment news is a little more hep than it was back in the days of the Beatles, but it’s still fluff.
The World Press Review is essentially a digest of foreign publications and while it can be invaluable for alternate viewpoints, the shortened format tends to leave out a lot of context.
The Economist is also fairly conservatively biased, economically, but has good wide-ranging coverage of much that is ignored by the U.S. magazines.
So, to boil it down, the biases of the big newsmagazines are those of the middle-class readership they serve. Maybe that’s why they seem familiar.
Waaay back when, I started reading Newsweek and liked its more liberal, hip attitude (for mainstream media). Then came The Dark Ages (Reagan era) and it completely flipped into a ultra right wing “no thinking allowed” tabloid. Dropped the subscription.
The Economist is sounding better and better at this point… How conservatively biased is it? On level with U.S. News which I can pretty much NOT stand at this point? Or is it less severe, like Time/Newsweek? At this point, my interest is piqued.
Of course, nothing stands in the way of Natural History for news I REALLY need. 
The Economist is pro-legalization of drugs, and (on the rare occasions it states a position on the issue) anti-monarchy.
It calls itself “liberal” - in the classic sense of believing in small government and free markets.
People who call it “conservative” are (IMVVVHO) socialist, pinko lefties who can’t handle capitalism.
The thing that makes the Economist’s conservative bias no big problem (to me at least) is that it is a) thoughtful b) out in the open (they’ll admit when something they say is a matter of their beliefs rather than of the facts).
The fact that Time and Newsweek are American is no excuse. The Economist’s coverage of the world outside Britain is much more comprehensive than either Time or Newsweek.
Way less eye-candy photos and snappy graphics, though.
Subscribe to Newsweek, but read Time regularly and sometimes US Snooze.
Newsweek and Time have absolutely no perspective on tech matters. I have rarely read any technological that is not overwhelmingly full of gosh-gee-whiz wow stuff. In their world, Windows performs flawlessly, and Steven Jobs will ascend into heaven three days after he dies. Newsweek’s recent massive spreads on the Office of the Future and the Home of the Future will give you a pretty good idea of their blinkered attitude.
I read their essays and reviews, but most of my news and commentary comes from the blog world, starting with www.instapundit.com, and rolling from there. Why bother reading rehashed news when you get more of it, and fresher, off the net?
I’ve been a Newsweek subscriber for years, it’s in a lull at the moment but I still think it beats Time hands down. Both have their biases, but I find Time tends to cater to a less scholarly audience. Newsweek has well selected, reader submitted essays (My Turn), balanced articles on the Middle East by the excellent Fareed Zakaria, less entertainment news than Time, and the always insightful George Will. Recently, I’ve been reading the Economist and its quickly becoming a new favorite periodical.
pesch, slashdot, drudge, and the blogs will beat any magazine to a new story, but there is something nice about sitting down on the couch with a great magazine.
One other thing about the Economist - it has a sense of humor. I remember years back when the US accused Libya of having chemical weapons manufavturing facilities, Gaddhafi claimed they were “pharmaceuticals factories”. The Economist’s story included a head and shoulders photo of an extremely brutal-looking Gaddhafi in peaked cap and shades. The caption was “Your friendly neighborhood pharmacist”
Personally I find Time slightly more entertaining to read, but I’d never keep either of the two as my primary news source. I read the Christian Science Monitor, which, despite the misleading name, is a fairly unbiased source with a good perspective on world events (rather than just American events!) and a high quality of writing. I believe their authors have won numerous Pulitzers. Despite the “Christian” in their name the only place their religious beginning shows is on the last few pages and I never bother to read them.
The only problem is that it’s really a newspaper, and therefore comes every day. It’s a big paper and sometimes it’s difficult to keep up with reading it all, especially since it doesn’t arrive in the morning – the traditional time for reading the paper!
Tanaqui
That’s exactly the same for me as well. It is an exceptionally well written magazine, unlike Time, Newsweek and their ilk, which I find very juvenile and poorly written.
The Economist is definitely more “liberal” on social issues, like capital punishment and drug legalisation.
Chris the “socialist, pinko lefty who can’t handle capitalism.” 
IMO, the Economist is conservative by European standards, but liberal by American ones.
From this week’s issue:
- …for the moment at least, the [Bush] administration’s warning about “mass death and injury” seems overwrought. Dirty nuclear bombs come in 2 different sorts…
2a. The absolute number of malnourished people is declining by about 5m a year. As a proportion of the world’s population, the improvement is even more marked. But that leaves 800m people hungry, which translates into a lot of human suffering.
2b. …most of the rich world’s subsidies go to the richest farmers, many of them millionaires. They certainly won’t starve.
-
Earlier in the year, Congress was breathing fire about audit reform, including tougher regulations of accountants… Yet, as so often, the ire has been deftly extinguished by deep-pocketed corporate lobbyists.
-
The dangers will grow if George Bush accepts Ariel Sharon’s reasons for putting off talks.
That’s 4 out of 5 editorials. The missing one evaluated prospects for reform in China.
Also, IMO the Economist beats the pants off of Timeweek. For an American POV, I would recommend the New York Times. The Washington Post also has a weekly that’s worth considering.
Then there are the ideological rags such as the New York Review of Books.
Actually I like the time of the 20s to about the 50s …
When it was more like a national newspaper and less like all the other magazienes
Some of the early give and take … espically in the letters section is funny
For some reason I found early newsweek hard to read …