I was an early subscriber (beginning with the issue with the “Rats!” headline, on rats in NYC, not to mention the cover’s supermodel), too, but I don’t think I stuck with it long enough to notice a decline in quality.
A lot of its satire was aimed at the P.R. and publicity industry, and the ways that the successful and strivers shamelessly pat each other on the back: “Blurb-O-Matic!” and “Log-rolling in our time,” etc. Brilliant skewering of the rich, famous, and desperately insecure…
And when Abe Rosenthal died last week, the first thing I thought of was, “Abe ‘I’m writing as fast as I can’ Rosenthal”!
I’ve always thought the original Spy was a victim of how influential it was: it appeared to lose its edge after the mainstream media discovered irony and detachment. I subscribed from 1987 until it folded the first time, and I’m still proud of having two letters published in it.
Whereas the original had a pleasant skepticism once described as Mad for grownups, the resurrected version was basically a cynically ‘hip’ fan magazine gushing over celebrities.
How sad to turn into one of the things that you once made fun of.
I’ve worked with a lot of magazine people, and I can tell you that sometimes the quality goes downhill as a response to poor numbers. Adpages or subs begin to lag, marketing begins to wag the editorial dog, and before long, you have a mag that is a cheesy, pandering LCD version of what it was. This is supposed to work miracles, never does, and is always repeated.