SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Backward Runs 'Newsweek'

MEDIA MAY 21, 2009

Backward Runs 'Newsweek' Blah blah newsmag remake blah blah

BY MICHAEL KINSLEY

Having recently been dumped by Time, I naturally had great hopes for this week's much-anticipated makeover of Newsweek. Both surviving newsmags (US News is said to exist still in some form, but no one I know has seen it lately) are in an Internet panic like that affecting newspapers. Newsweek has always been a bit faster on its feet. But judging from its first issue, the new Newsweek is not going to be the instrument of my revenge, alas.

In his editor's letter--one of many traditional newsmagazine features that have survived the scythe of change--Jon Meacham says, "We are not pretending to be your guide through the chaos of the Information Age," which concedes a lot of ground from the get-go. Why not at least pretend? Why else would people pick it up, let alone subscribe? The newsmags face a choice. Actually, they've faced it since long before the Internet. Should they try to provide a complete picture of what happened last week? Or should they stop worrying about that and hope to find appeal in trends, service pieces, fine writing, muckraking exposes, provocative argument, and other traditional non-news magazine fare? Whenever they have an existential crisis--and this is not the first--they always make the wrong choice.

Meacham--a very smart and thoughtful guy, which in my experience is not necessarily true of all newsmagazine editors (all two, that is)--actually says that his model is "the great monthlies of old" like Harper's and Esquire. He says the building blocks of the new Newsweek will be "two kinds of stories": the "reported narrative" and "the argued essay." So what's wrong with that? Well, to start, those grand old monthlies at their primes had a smaller paying readership than Newsweek has at its supposed nadir. So duplicating their greatness could be a pyrrhic victory. Furthermore, while it's not impossible to get readers by peddling sheer enjoyment, it's a lot easier to peddle necessity, or at least usefulness: You need this magazine to sort out the world for you and to make sure you haven't missed anything. In short, you need it to be your guide through the chaos, as Meacham so eloquently describes what he intends to avoid. And when something like the Internet comes along to make the chaos even more chaotic, you need your trusty guide more, not less. Possibly the dumbest slogan ever for a newsmag was one used briefly by Time a few years ago: "Make time for Time." Make time for Time? Who has that kind of time? If you can convince people that reading Time will save them time, then you may have a deal.

That said, Meacham's vision of a magazine full of exciting narrative and provocative arguments isn't terrible, if he could pull it off every week. Sadly, though, he has been defeated by what Mikhail Gorbachev used to call "the approaches of the stagnation period." He says he wants "provocative (but not partisan) arguments." Which would be what? "Let's paint the Capitol dome dark brown"? Or, "Try cooked carrots--they're not too bad"? It's not easy to be provocative if you're looking over your shoulder for the partisanship police. But Meacham's problem is more basic than that: The new Newsweek, judging from the first issue (which Meacham calls "a model of the form"), bizarrely resembles the old Newsweek more than the new Newsweek Meacham describes. It is cluttered with departments and headlines and labels and tiny features, all of which imply some hierarchy or order in the editors' minds, but only add to the chaos in the readers'. Its longer pieces follow all the stale conventions of newsmagazine prose.

What, for example, is this graphic on the letters page? Why, for that matter, is there still a letters page? It's the first page of content you come to. Five one-paragraph comments on the issue published two weeks ago--room for little more than a thumbs up or down. On the Internet, thousands of people have their say immediately and at length. And then a self-parody: "Your thoughts on swine flu" –the cover story two weeks ago--"in six words." Hali McGrath of Berkeley, California, submitted, "Blah, blah, swine flu, blah blah." And Newsweek published it.

But back to the graphic. It lists what I guess are five articles from the issue two weeks ago, each attached to a percentage. A thin line heads east from the second item ("16% ‘The Path of a Pandemic'"), turns south, and ends up at a pie chart (38% neutral, 21% positive, 41% critical). A tiny footnote says, "Does not add up to 100 due to letters received on other topics." Oh, I get it, I think. This is a breakdown by topic of letters--letters!-- received about the issue two weeks ago, plus a breakdown of one topic (possibly the cover?) by approval. So now you know that twice as many people who wish to comment on "The Path of a Pandemic" than those who wish to comment on "Tom Daschle and Mitt Romney on Health Care" know where to find a stamp. Fascinating.

But enough about a two-week-old issue of Newsweek. Let's talk about a four-week old issue of Newsweek. The next page of editorial content is an "update" by the author of Newsweek's month-old cover story about former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. It discusses important ethical issues such as whether, in reporting that he and Spitzer had gone jogging together and Spitzer had pooped out, he should have mentioned that he is 20 years younger. Also, whether Newsweek, in publishing the original article, was wrongly participating in Spitzer's rehabilitation. "I didn't write about the process," he writes, "because I thought readers would find the story of private citizen Eliot Spitzer far more interesting than they'd find the story of how Newsweek journalist Jonathan Darman got the story." He'll know better next time. But is this article a "reported narrative"? Or is it a "provocative (but not partisan) argument"? Hard to say. The next page (labeled "Top of the Week") is Meacham's apologia (or is it a mea culpa, or maybe a cri de Coeur?). That means the first three pages of content in the new Newsweek are about Newsweek.

The next page of content is headlined "Scope," with the explanatory subhead "news, scoops and the globe at a glance," which is pretty much what Meacham had said Newsweek was not going to cover anymore. But never mind the headline. Most of the page is a picture of Miss California in a white bikini. I know she's Miss California because of a quote from Donald Trump just over her right shoulder, with the added information that he had "allowed [her] to keep her crown." Her breasts are covered by a table of contents of the Scope section. These contents include "InternationaList" (short dispatches from foreign parts; no list that I can see); a source-greaser (flattering profile of a figure who may prove useful) about CIA director Leon Panetta; something called the "Indignity Index," described as "an unscientific appraisal of dubious public behavior" (comedian Wanda Sykes gets a 12 for a rude joke about Rush Limbaugh, Keifer Sutherland gets a 68 for some kind of unpleasant encounter at a party); a short, serious essay by Melinda Gates about building institutions in underdeveloped countries to help poor people save money; and so on.

I say "and so on" as if there is some pattern or similarity here. But the only thing these various features have in common is nothing more about Miss California. It's been said that the test of a newsmagazine is whether you would grab it if you'd been trapped in a coal mine for a week and had one hour to catch up. And after a week trapped in a coal mine, perhaps an hour with a picture of Miss California in a bikini will be more useful than any explanation of why she's in the news. But the new Newsweek maintains the same irritating practice as the old one of half-explaining, which is no use either to those who already know the story or to those who don't.

For example, on the "Perspectives" page (quotes of the week) is a quote--"He's lanky, smart, tough, a sneaky stealth soldier"--identified as "Maj. Gen William Nash on Lt. Gen Stanley McChrystal, who was tapped to replace Gen. David McKiernan as head of U.S. operations in Afghanistan after McKiernan was asked to resign from his post." Got that? Through this blizzard of brass, we can discern the shadows of a story about Afghanistan. Maybe we should know all about it. But do we? In situations like this we used to rely on newsmagazines to help us bluff. But this quote is no help at all. The story seems to be about McKiernan's resignation, but the quote is about his successor. And what good is it to know that he is "lanky"?

My favorite feature in the Scope section, and possibly in this entire issue of Newsweek, is called (for no special reason that I can determine except for a failed attempt at a pun) "The Reign of Spain." And it consists of a handsome chart comparing the unemployment rate in Spain in December 2007 and in March 2009 with the unemployment rates in other countries on those same dates. Why Spain? Why those dates? Why these other countries? Newsweek's entire explanation: "Unemployment in Spain is soaring as the country sheds thousands of low-skilled jobs."

Next comes a section called "The Take," apparently a ghetto for Newsweek's columnists, who used to be sprinkled through the magazine. Reading six columnists right in a row might ordinarily be heavy slogging. But in this case the force and originality of their arguments and the beauty of their prose overwhelm any qualms. In fact, this magnificent section goes a long way toward justifying the entire misbegotten project. And I don't just say that because three of the six columnists are former colleagues of mine here at The New Republic. Or perhaps I do say it for that reason. Or is it the full-page photo of Fareed Zakaria in a white bikini that has numbed my critical faculties?

And so we progress to "Features," which seems to be longer articles on myriad subjects, many written by outsiders (Michael Bloomberg, Tina Brown…), who are prized because they bring an independent luster. Also, you don't have to give them health care. But the section's lead story is the magazine's cover story: an essay about and interview with President Obama by Meacham himself. This kind of thing was a staple of the old newsmagazine, and it follows strict rules. It always opens with an anecdote or telling detail that flaunts the magazine's access to the great, and illustrates whatever the point of the piece was supposed to be. Disappointingly, Meacham's reinvented Newsweek has not abandoned this stale formula.

Foreshadowed by the weak cover headline--"Obama on Obama"--Meacham's own opening anecdote is comically lame, reduced to using the temperature to gin up a bit of phony drama. Well, it seems that "last Wednesday, in the gathering cool of late afternoon," Obama was about to get on Air Force One to fly "to the heat of Arizona." He saw "a small crowd of schoolchildren and military personnel gathered with cameras and homemade signs" and went over to shake their hands. That's it, except for one more weather report: When he turned back to board the plane, "a breeze blew--and everyone scurried anew, to keep up with him."

Another piece in the issue--I guess it's supposed to be a "reported narrative … grounded in original observation and freshly discovered fact"--is about curing autism. "It's spring in Washington," the piece begins, "and Ari Ne'eman, with his navy suit and leather briefcase on wheels, is in between his usual flurry of meetings." It's spring in Washington. That doesn't seem to qualify as either an "original observation" or a "freshly discovered fact." Nor does it have any apparent relevance to the story that follows. Could it be a "provocative (but not partisan) argument"? And what about that blue suit? I have news for Newsweek: Washington is the blue suit capital of the world. Let's give them the leather briefcase on wheels.

I could go on. But you should buy a copy of the current Newsweek and judge for yourself whether the "argued essay" you have just read is "grounded in reason and supported by evidence." Don't forget to cancel your subscription to Time while you're at it.

Michael Kinsley is a former editor of The New Republic and the editor, most recently, of Creative Capitalism: A Conversation with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Other Economic Leaders.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 121 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

121 comments

Great piece. Now that Time has "dumped" the K Man, can TNR PLEASE take him back? Just dump Kirchirk.

- ChadMWa

May 21, 2009 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rantilicious!

- stgla

May 21, 2009 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blah blah Michael Kinsley whines and bitches as usual blah blah

- buddy

May 21, 2009 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ehh-hmmm Mr Kinsley your "Time" is showing. Perhaps you need to lighten up? These days a sense of humor is more important than ever. But just to keep the record straight I also submitted these "6 Word Thoughts" Are you saying Newsweek isn't allowed to have a sense of humor? For the record I also submitted these - viral news more scary than virus Obama says "What? Swine Flu? Seriously?!"

- Hali McGrath

May 21, 2009 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well destroyed, sir.

- jhildner

May 21, 2009 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

David Denby is *not* going to be happy with this snarky garbage, Mr. Kinsley.

- Ken Layne

May 21, 2009 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too long; didn't read.

- America

May 21, 2009 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hali McG: um...who exactly is it that doesn't have a sense of humor?

- porkido

May 21, 2009 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here everyone, Wonkette has summarised this quite well so you don't have to spend your time reading it: "So, Michael Kinsley apparently got fired from Time, and spends 2,000+ words in The New Republic bitching about how he doesn’t like the redesigned Newsweek, because he was hoping to move his column there, to get revenge on the editor of Time." You're welcome, everyone! And remember, Mikey, snark only works when it's funny. This is just sad.

- Atlas

May 21, 2009 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Such is my fate, to finally make it into the prestigious club of folks mentioned on a TNR blog, only to have it only be as a means of taking potshots at Newsweek. Tragic! Oy vey zmir! ;)

- Ari Ne'eman

May 22, 2009 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obnoxious review aside -- and this one was unecessarily shrill -- I had my own doubts about a revamped Newsweek. Time seriously disappointed with their redesign a couple years back, and I figured Newsweek would not offer up anything different. Weekly newsmagazines out of NYC jumped the shark a long time ago. Also, I watched Jon Meacham this week struggle to describe the mag's new direction to Charlie Rose the other night on Rose's show. Me and Charlie were unconvinced.

- jessie

May 22, 2009 at 1:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very funny piece. It's touching to read all 6 of Newsweek's readers defend their beloved newsmagazine in this comments section.

- Mizzou

May 22, 2009 at 2:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll always remember this particularly bitchy quote of Michael Kinsley's: “It’s a healthy democratic instinct to enjoy seeing the mighty fall, whether the mighty deserve it or not...Reagan’s comeuppance is democracy’s salvation...Dry those tears and repeat after me: Ha. Ha. Ha.” So, Michael was dumped by Time. HA HA HA! ...

- Kitty

May 22, 2009 at 6:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Readers of Wonkette are in no position to judge the quality of snark

- Simon

May 22, 2009 at 7:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Half of Newsweek's staff appears to moonlight on far left wing MSNBC. This gives consumers the impression Newsweek condones the reek emanating from Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz, Matthews, Gregory, etc. What does Newsweek expect? Of course consumers are canceling if you look like you are part of the MSNBC tripe.

- mary

May 22, 2009 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know it's a ghastly thought for all you pompous liberals in the media - but here - suck on this NOBODY REALLY CARES MUCH ABOUT ALL YOUR OPINIONS. THATS WHAT CHANGED NEWSPAPERS - THEY USED TO REPORT BUT NOW ARE HELD HOSTAGE TO EGO-MANIACAL EDITORS WITH AGENDAS (see the den of socialists at the NYT). Sorry to rudley inform you little trollops, nobody is willing to pay you much, if any, for your vapid opinions. WRITERS PAY WILL DROP BY HUGE LEAPS THE NEXT 5 YEARS (and you socialist pigs will be crawling all over each other for 1/2 what you made in 2004 - how delicious). You should all look toward Arianna Huffington, everybit as ruthless a businessperson as Dick(oh my god!) Cheney. Her business model does not pay - it's a vanity site, and let's face it, that's perfect for little mama's boys like MK. That's all he has ever been anyway - a vanity act whining at the moon. A happy MK? NEVER!! PROFESSIONAL WHINER PROFESSIONAL WUSSY TYPICAL PUDDIN' HEAD LIBERAL. Hey, all you guys didn't like the world with rich people - wait till you get a glimpse of what is next without them. Who do you think was supporting your arrogance to look askance at others and drive your agenda's? I am so looking forward to seeing you guys try to get a real job. Oh, the humanity. THE PRESS DOES A FULL LEWINSKY ON OBAMA I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING A FEW TART REPLIES FROM ALL OF YOU LIMP-WRISTED BELTWAY JERKS. It is comforting to know the only thing you will ever oversee is your keyboards and your own fetid fantasies. cheers...gene wiley

- gene wiley

May 22, 2009 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. Not one word about the horrible new font face they chose to use? The entire magazine looks like slick advertising content now.

- Toast

May 22, 2009 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The new Newsweek is indeed as bad as what Newsweek had become. I guess the magazine publishing world has room for only so many Obama propaganda sheets. Newweek should either be a news weekly or a New Republic competitor and not try to do both.

- JohnB

May 22, 2009 at 9:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wait, I don't get it. Kinsley is snarky about Newsweek because he got bounced from Time?

- Roger Black

May 22, 2009 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Holy nitpicking, Michael Kinsley. You deride Newsweek for saying, "We can't outrun the Internet" - saying they should at least try. But then you go in all the ways that Newsweek takes the time to reflect on itself, accusing it of not being forward looking (like the Internet). Well, which is it? Pick an argument and stick to it, for God's sake. You attack the Darman piece because...why, exactly? It allows readers to take a look into the journalistic process? Because it gives more attention to Spitzer? No, you attack it because - holy of holies - Darman made an aside about running. All that and more lead to an article filled with nitpicking of little details and asides, contradictory arguments that failed to look at the big picture. You know what I thought when I finished your article? 'No wonder you got fired from Time.'

- Bart

May 22, 2009 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kinsey loses some credibility by infusing the review with so much personal anger, and using the opportunity to take cheap potshots at TIME, but the new Newsweek is indeed unbelievably terrible. Indeed, I cannot for the life of me tell the ads from the content, the indulgent amount of white space just looks pointless, those THE TAKE essays look so similar (slight, almost nonexistent graphic at top and miles and miles of text on white space) that it makes me want to read NONE of them. But as a pop culture addict, I at least thought the four-page American Idol piece would be interesting, but it was RIDICULOUS. Here it is, in a nutshell. IDOL 1: Hey, yo, how are you. IDOL 2: Cool, and you? THAT WAS IT FOR FOUR PAGES! "Reported narrative, grounded in original observation and freshly discovered fact that illuminates the important and the interesting"?!!! I had to check the date to make sure it wasnt April 1. Wow. Just a sad Wow.

- Dissapointed

May 22, 2009 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blah, blah, nutroots trolls in the comments, blah, blah, rama lama ding-dang-dong.

- Dark-Star

May 22, 2009 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So the new "Newsweek" doesn't want to be partisan? That will be a welcome change (but not likely to happen). Newsweek has been a left-wing, socialist rag for decades.

- fredt

May 22, 2009 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Toast: Yes, I noticed that as well. The font and use of color make the content look like a special advertising section. I noticed that many of the ads used a font very similar to the new headline font. Way too trendy.

- jhildner

May 22, 2009 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The NEW Newsweek STINKS! My subscription is history....

- DA

May 22, 2009 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I totally agree that Save Time By Saving Time ought to be Time's new motto.

- TimeInkless

May 22, 2009 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I found the issue quite inspiring in a Keystone Kops sort of way, with a vibrant half time spirited pep talk by the editor for his losing team and then they swing open the doors of the locker room and coach yells, "Let's go get 'em with provactive nonpartisanship!" and we immediately bump into a scantily clad full-page color photo of Miss California, the new Trumpette.

- Clovis

May 22, 2009 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seriously, take a look before you knock M.K.'s remarks; they're actually very restrained. European edition p.40, out of nowhere a boxed instruction to turn the page, (a thought which by p.40 has probably already occurred to many readers): "NEXT" (complete with helpful arrow to show which direction to turn said page)"On The Hunt For Joseph Kony". Turn over and there Mr Kony is. Once more on p.47: "NEXT" (+ arrow), but this time there's a clever twist: "Why Bow to China by Christian Caryl" isn't there, or anywhere. This issue is treasure trove of such gems.

- bugby

May 22, 2009 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Didn't TNR have a letters section in its print edition until really recently? Did TNR get rid of it just in time to mock Newsweek's letters section? I like the letters section -- they should bring it back.

- jaltcoh.blogspot.com

May 22, 2009 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is one to make of this? Obviously this guy is unhappy. He's been fired from so many jobs I can't keep count; but he's always failed upwards. That's a talent in and of itself. If Newsweek or Time is on the table in the waiting room at the dentist’s office, I'll look at it. Otherwise who in their right mind wood pay six bucks for this irrelevance?

- Erick Blair

May 22, 2009 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The school of "weather reporting," not to be confused with Weather Report or even The Weather Channel, was atmospheric smoke and mirrors brought to the mainstream first by Theodore White, then late of time. You could look it up. You ought to take a shot at Slate--and you ought to look back at your original concerns about timeliness and other issues online. Online journalism was a total mystery to you, jus as reinvention is to Meacham. Your perspective would be useful now and in retrospect. I think you would have been the first to admit that, like Meacham in print, you have not figured the damn thing out. Best, The Con Man!

- Mr. Kinsley

May 22, 2009 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Great piece. Now that Time has "dumped" the K Man, can TNR PLEASE take him back? Just dump Kirchirk." Hire Kinsley, promote Kirchik banish chadM.

- The anti-Chad

May 22, 2009 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@gene wiley -- Really?? Aren't you just talking about yourself? Your writing style and over use of CAPS hint at mediocrity. You obviously don't know how to make a point with your intellect and must resort to YELLING? (psst....that's what caps are for.) Were you meaning to yell? Your post just looks like someone threw letters at the screen, which could be used as a metaphor to describe your impotent outrage....all jumbled and lack of direction. All those words and not one paragraph break!? Can I ask you a question? How do you feel about gypsies? Or, Jews for that matter? Just curious. Aren't YOU just upset that you can't get ahead by just being average? Or, white and male? (Not that Michael Kinsely is great, he's not. He's better than bad, but not by much.) Sorry, we're looking for someone a little more talented. And while we are all moving ahead and doing better and better, you'll be trying to justify your tired way of thinking of cursing the next person who does better than you. That bothersome sensation that something is amiss is called Cognitive Dissonance. Google it. Sorry, Gene, if you comments meant to incite, they didn't work. They just make us feel sorry for you, your significant other and any offspring you may have. Not to mention your gay lover. :-)

- Dan

May 22, 2009 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek is still in business? Who knew? It is kind of reassuring to see that Obama is on the cover, though...hadn't seen him in a while, and you begin to wonder if he's okay.

- Chris

May 22, 2009 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I picked up Meacham's book about Andrew Jackson at an airport kiosk to read while traveling. The first 30 pages were so inanly repetitious, indicating an unbearable lightness of writing, I left it at the hotel and read 'In Style'for the trip home.

- CAMtwo

May 22, 2009 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is killing the media is not the Internet - it's advertising. Advertising has mutated from a useful notice of new products to a pathological quest for ever diminishing returns. And the media are bought up by investors interested only in having a platform to host their advertising, which is their real interest. You might have a viable news magazine if it were run by someone who wanted to run a news magazine and be content with it earning a profit. But if its principal mission is to earn advertising revenue and appeal to the demographics that advertisers want to reach, it will inevitably fail.

- Steve Dutch

May 22, 2009 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Michael is terrific. I cannot believe he was fired by Time Magazine (now should I cancel my subscription?). Let's face it, all magazines and newspapers are caught up the crushing economics of our time. I still love newspapers and magazines, as long as the journalist has a brain in their head. My local Florida papers are all AP wire copy and pretty lame article about nothing, so it's a no brainer that they should go down with the ship, but Time and Newsweek were once our greatest magazines. I still like them both, but they are getting as slim as I am. Whatever Michael Kinsley has to say, I will listen. He is brilliant and funny - and pragmatic (and I went to elementary school with him).

- Diane F

May 23, 2009 at 1:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the immortal words of David Duke:"Kinsley, you cheap little worm". Or, as Pat Buchana says:"Kinsley is whar democrap women think is a mans man" Weasle.

- Rhondalhs

May 23, 2009 at 9:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I received this ridiculous mag again this month; i have called several times to stop my subscription, but the magazine still arrives at my door and I throw it out. Why do you ask? Because I am tired of seeing the president on the cover. I don't see how you can be making money if people are not paying for the magazine.

- Kim

May 23, 2009 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who IS Michael Kinsley? I thought He was Dead. Hey Michael the world passed you by

- RON

May 23, 2009 at 9:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama is on the cover, I am not buying or reading the magazine. In fact, I wouldn't pay that price for a magazine I liked. Let me know how this works out for them.

- Polly

May 23, 2009 at 9:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, the main reason for the decline of newspapers and magazines is the internet. But...I still think the significant increase in political bias of the print media has played a role. They really don't report political news as much as they try to shape public opinion by slanting their coverage. I subscribed to Newsweek for years...but had to cancel last year as I just couldn't take it any more. The rag was nothing but a cheerleading poster for Obama...it was so ott it was almost a parody. So circulation has tanked and Meacham tries something new. IMO he should just rename the thing "Obamaweek" and be done with it. He would at least guarantee himself a reliable (albeit tiny) audience.

- JohnR

May 23, 2009 at 9:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lanky!

- Reggie Dunlop

May 23, 2009 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't realize people took Newsweek or Time this seriously.

- Papa JJ

May 23, 2009 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I spent 2 1/2 years in Eastern Europe and one of the massive benefits was a free subscription to Newsweek. The version they publish over there is so bizarre and radical with a distinct anti-American leaning designed to appeal to their reader of that area that I realized finally that no, it isn't a news magazine, it's a rag. And frankly I no longer need somebody to tell me about something that happened last week anymore. I know about it today. Good luck to them. I'm sure they have decent people that need the job.

- beb

May 23, 2009 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes from someone living in publishing's past. When the media decided that they were they story, instead of reporting on the story - they lost relevancy and became just another opinion rag. The media's suck-up to Obama during the campaign was proof positive of the loss of any claims to objectivity or journalistic professionalism. So the magazines die - who cares, other than those who were on the payroll?

- Producer

May 23, 2009 at 9:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My mom told me about Henry Aldrich, Fibber McGee's closet, and The Shadow. I tell my kids about Time and Newsweek.

- Mike

May 23, 2009 at 9:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama on Obama? Isn't this what we get every time he steps up to the teleprompter? Why would anyone want to read this?

- Denise

May 23, 2009 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gosh that was good!!!

- B Henley

May 23, 2009 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A lot to do about nothing... dude, get a life. Hoe your garden, buy a dozen pencils with erasers on both ends, whatever it takes to stfu.

- Randall

May 23, 2009 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm going to agree with Toast here, a major complaint I have is the style of this revamp. To me it's hideous and slick, ghastly for even casual browsing much less reading.

- Bill

May 23, 2009 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kinsley overrates Jon Meachem. I tried reading his book on Jackson, and it was plain awful, despite the glowing words heaped on it whenever Meachem appears on MSNBC. I'm telling you, the book is unreadable.

- MaryF

May 23, 2009 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bought it...leafed it....tossed it.

- vemm

May 23, 2009 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If this is a window into the soul and life of Michael Kinsley....then I have to get down on my knees and thank God that I am not Michael Kinsley. It's really quite sad when you think about it.

- Larry Rasczak

May 23, 2009 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry to hear about you getting the boot from Time, mikey. Find yourself a stamp and send your resume over to the dailykos.

- Dan Mapel

May 23, 2009 at 9:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that Newsweek's problems are rooted in its sparse coverage of Obama.If it devoted more time and energy to him, and repeated hos talking points more often it would become more popular.Just a suggestion

- Helen

May 23, 2009 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not format Kinsley; it's not even content. These mags are boring, predictable, unerringly dishonest, and they cost too much. Save a tree. Keep Obama on the front, pretend everything is OK (who knows it may be. Since Buckley, damn him, made you we have been subject to your precious little "wisdoms", Dionne is less predictable and effete than you. Adios! If he exists, right?

- Stephen

May 23, 2009 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

who cares anyway ? The mags and writers are full of meaningless agendas for the ignorant.

- joe

May 23, 2009 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He says he wants 'provocative (but not partisan) arguments.'" Are you kidding? How many times has Obama been on the cover of Newsweek & Time--50+ times in the past year?! I stopped reading both magazines over a year ago, because they had devolved into faux-news versions of People Magazine. And now they want to raise the price? Yea, that'll save 'em. B-bye. I get my news from multiple independent sources online now, where there are actual facts and contradictory voices.

-

May 23, 2009 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He says he wants 'provocative (but not partisan) arguments.'" Are you kidding? How many times has Obama been on the cover of Newsweek & Time--50+ times in the past year?! I stopped reading both magazines over a year ago, because they had devolved into faux-news versions of People Magazine. And now they want to raise the price? Yea, that'll save 'em. B-bye. I get my news from multiple independent sources online now, where there are actual facts and contradictory voices.

- fran

May 23, 2009 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece is dead-on!! I remember when I subscribed to all three weeklies. Every once in awhile I'll pick one up to see if they've regained their old straight-reporting edge .. nope, just biased essays pretending to be unbiases .. and too short to be interesting. I'll stick to the Economist. Robert in DC

- Robert

May 23, 2009 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The latest episode of "As the Elites Turn"... Same names, same plots, same outcomes no substance just more boorish self-serving arrogance.

- M. Pike - Colorado

May 23, 2009 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why buy the rag when you know what it is going to say about anything? Bush bad. Obama saintly. It is pretty much a regurgitation of DNC or WH talking points. Only 20-30% of Americans are hard core Democrats and a lot of those people can't or don't read or get their talking points from the DailyKos or Huffington so Newsweek's potential market is ridiculously small. I used to read Time and Newsweek and got turned off by their relentlessly biased coverage and commentary. I don't even read it in the library where I can read it for free. The MSM is going to learn some day the hard way that you can't offend and annoy a large segment of a market and stay in business for long. "Obama on Obama" Yeah, like I want to read that. Not to worry though. Obama has a bailout package ready for them too.

- Mad Jayhawk

May 23, 2009 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

US News...dying. Time...16 or 17 Obama covers. And now, Newsweek becomes Newspeak. You guys go ahead without us, we are finding the truth on our own. Rest in peace lefty new mags.

-

May 23, 2009 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for not letting me down...

- Stephen

May 23, 2009 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually a very comical scene. Obama on Obama surrounded by breathless masterbating writers, editors, and readers. Giggle.

- John Lavender

May 23, 2009 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek cannot be informative or provocative as long as it values political correctness over truth. The weekly magazines (Newsweek, Time, US News) all remain in the tank for Obama, and as such they are unwilling to report what is really happening to our economy and our national security. Newsweek readers get nothing but pro-Obama propaganda instead of news. Even registered Democrats can tell when they are being lied to.

- Patrick C.

May 23, 2009 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Kinsley did not analyze the real issue regarding Newsweek: "circulation". Possibly this was not examined because neither TIME nor Newsweek have any credible national circulation -- which is why advertising in these wretched rags is less and less attractive. In 2004 Time had about 4 million+, Newsweek about 3 million+....2008 TIME is at 3.3 or less and Newsweek was at 2.6 or less. Newstand sales and subscriptions are declining precipitously each quarter. At 8 million circulation, more people are reading about bushes for their yards (Better Homes and Gardens)than the Bush bashing creep pieces and convoluted views-of-life by these these "magazines". Within the next 18 months the financial situation will be "unsustainable", and these will go the way of LIFE, LOOK, The Saturday Evening Post, Rocky Mountain News, Seattle Post and others of this ilk. Why are they failing? Maybe because they have become pep-squad publications for a point of views that hold no interest for main stream America. A "make-over", "face-lift" and "hair implant" may work for pop culture celebrities and politicians, but not for magazines. TIME and Newsweek require a major re-engineering and re-establishment of a set of credible honest journalistic values, morals and character, but these are foreign notions to the people running these publications.

- Yeeeech

May 23, 2009 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it amusing that all they need to do to "survive" is stop worshiping Obama and maybe do some honest reporting about what we've gotten ourselves into with the new administration. Not surprisingly though they are apparently willing to die to prove their love of the messiah.

- Adam

May 23, 2009 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek next week. Obama on Obama on Obama!!!!!!!!

- Fred Smith

May 23, 2009 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Long boring article that was unreadable to the end. A jumbled mess of confusion. The reason Newsweak, Time, etc. will fail in the end is that they have basiclly told half of the people in the USA that their opinions are wrong and they need to become liberals. Look at the cover of their "new" Newsweak and it says it all. Obama on Obama. All through the campaign and since it's all Obama all the time. The main stream media helped elect this guy and they will put gas in his bus if it runs out on the way to driving us all over a cliff. Anything that goes wrong will be blamed on Bush, (and Bush was a disaster on many fronts). That said Newsweak and the rest of the MSM is losing the war to the Internet and talk radio and that is why they are so desperate to shut both down. In the end the Democrats in Congress and Obama will prop them up at tax payer expense and they will be like Pravda in the old Soviet Union.

- frank3108

May 23, 2009 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The liberal elite (both govt and media which are actually one and the same) have no idea what is transpiring out in the hinterlands of REAL America. People are fed up with this Oligarchy. They HATE the leaders of both parties and Obamas popularity is much lower than percieved due to the fear of being called a racist. Party leaders on both sides will be voted out of office in 2010. Reed and Dodd are toast. The only thing that will save Pelosi is her constituents are even more mentally unstable than is she. Kinsley and his ilk are so F*cking OVER.

- nadadhimmi

May 23, 2009 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek, Time, The New Republic... All the same antiquated tripe. The day you Boomers die off - and you younger pretentious Boomer wannabees - the sooner my generation can clean up this country. So die already.

- Robert Lee

May 23, 2009 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek is in a crowded market. There are simply too many news outlets offering the same leftist viewpoint for them all to make money. If they want to survive, they should clean house, then move about 10 degrees right of center instead of the 30 degrees left of center where they are now. At least half the population wouldn't even sit in a doctor's waiting room with that rag (including me), let alone buy a subscription. And they are the half that has disposable income and READS. Newsweek should make a smart marketing decision and differentiate themselves from the leftwing pack. Hire some prominent conservative writers, start covering the other side of the story for a change, and they will be rewarded. Even as I write this, I know it can never happen, fairness in journalism, that is.

- Kelly

May 23, 2009 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In 2006, I dropped Newsweek after subscribing off and on for 40 years and switched to TIME, because of one too many makeovers and their incredibly shrinking typeface. It became unreadable, uninteresting and sadly, uninformative. This month, I decided not to renew TIME, despite months of "urgent" communications from various executives. TIME has also been shrunk to the point that it is no longer relevant, and is also hard to read with their own version of shrinking typeface.

- Avery Sloan

May 23, 2009 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

News magazines like big city newspapers turned into left wing rants a decade ago, and as such doomed themselves. Journalism and the broadcast slanted news media has now marginalized itself as it heads even further left starting in universities turning off 90% of college students from such career choices. Not many potential readers care what lefty Kinseys think.

- Ralphbusdriver

May 23, 2009 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who cares what Kinsley thinks? He is the only audience he has. I have never heard one word about him from anyone, from a janitor to a company president. Kinsley is non-existent and unimportant, and without any cultural value. Please, don't give us his voice, we don't want it, we don't read it, we don't care about it.

- Lorenzo Jones

May 23, 2009 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've been a journalist for over 20 years and recently when I've picked up Newsweek, reading it has been a waste of time. The reporters are often young kids who don't know what they are talking about but think they do. They don't discuss with fairness many issues as evidence by how often they mock conservatives. Right there, they are losing half their potential readership. How often have covers been cheerleaders for Barack Obama? In the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s, Barack only won 54% of vote so Newsweek is alienating 46% of its potential market. I can go on but the magazine is irrelevant.

- Peter

May 23, 2009 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's too bad rich people can't afford to have smart children. I have no clue who Kinsley might be - not even gonna bother to look it up on Wikipedia - but I'm fairly certain this article sucks just as bad as anything I'd never read in Newsweek or Time. The government bailed you people out - please try to learn from your mistakes and leave your children to simply play with the money. Given fortune, I know they whine for fame and glory mostest of all - But rather than indulging your darling hacks, turn somewhere else for talent.

- Ivy League Hack

May 23, 2009 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If it wasn't for the Obama on Obama Praise ad nauseum ................................................

- Sue

May 23, 2009 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dumb move on Newsweeks part. I'll give Meacham and his bosses some free consultation here that can seave them: Turn Newsweek into an urban-ghetto magazine. I'm serious. Price it an one dollar and put an Obama on the cover every week (not just 2 out of 3 like now). Once in a while, you can mix in a cover story about LeBron James, Rihanna, Jennifer Hudson, or how Michael Vick is getting screwed. Sell it in gas stations, corner stores, wal-mart check out aisles, and prison canteens only. You'll save the company! Liquidation is the only other option.

- James

May 23, 2009 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek or "Old Newsweek" will be gone in a year. Readers who get talked down to have walked. Those who derive pleasure from Newsweek talking down to their moral and intellectual inferiors will grow bored with the game. Adios.

- LT

May 23, 2009 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lipstick on a pig, to quote our POTUS. The problem was content, not layout. A left bias (didn't see CW in the new issue, thank goodness), that degrades it's value as a source for news and information. I subscribe to lots of magazines. Like reading them. Don't find them too expensive. But when the content sucks, then I'm a sucker for paying for it. On the plus side, the new layout made it easier to find the number to call to cancel my subscription. It's not the internet that's killing you, IT'S YOUR CONTENT!

- Maggie

May 23, 2009 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Go ahead, keep fooling yourself and keep blaming the demise of the liberal print press on the internet. Perhaps if these rags returned to real balanced journalism instead of liberal propoganda publications readership would return. How many goo-goo-ga-ga cover stories of the Obamas do these publications think we Americans can take before we say enough is enough!!!

- gchii

May 23, 2009 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Kinsley - I didn't see any great concern on your part when 50 Time Magazine employees were laid off in 2007 to help pay you and Iraq War propagandist Bill Kristol to blather in full-page thumbsucking columns. Or when 600 Time Inc. staffers were let go last year, either. Go find another shoulder to cry on, you frail, feckless excuse for an intellectual.

- Anon O'Mous

May 23, 2009 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hate the new Newsweek, too (mostly the fact that it looks like one big advertorial). But I only need two words (not six) to describe Kinsey's over-the-top takedown: sour grapes.

- Rogier

May 23, 2009 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fewer places these liberal/commie/socialist writers like MK have spew their ilk the better I like it. Evry time I see where one of these liberal rags go undeer or have to cut back it puts a smile on my face. They have ruined this country with their liberal agenda and I hope they get ruined in the process.

- obiewan

May 23, 2009 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek and Time gasp for readership like a dying man with no more time to care about the news of the week gasps and gulps his final breaths of Life. Pun intended. Perhaps the administration will bail them out by ordering that every citizen subscribe and read their party line. Times are hard, so please send me your old copies of Time and Newsweek for my commode. Who said anything about reading material?

- Bill Schulz

May 23, 2009 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like all other liberal propaganda outlets, it will be gone in 4 years along with Obama.

- ratdog

May 23, 2009 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Kinsley is as relevant as Newsweek and Time.

- Grievous

May 23, 2009 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said Gene Wiley. And heaven help us if we need Newsweek or any similar tripe to guide us through the chaos.

- Gerald McDaniel

May 23, 2009 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Kinsley. Even as bad as Newsweek is.. the bottom of the barrel as far as weekly mags go, you have fallen to being completely and totally irrelevant.

- jona

May 23, 2009 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michael, what is it about seeing Obama's photo on all the magazines covers "all the time" that escapes you? Maybe the readers, or potential readers, have had it with agenda driven news coverage disguised as journalism.

- Arturo

May 23, 2009 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sounds like there's no need to waste time looking for an issue of the "new" Newsweek. The unaddressed issue (excuse the term) here is why are so many supposedly smart media people approaching the crisis in their industry in such a stupid manner? Did their Bush Derangement Syndrome actually push the people formerly known as journalists off the deep end?

- Paco

May 23, 2009 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nobody can "out-snark" Meacham himself. He is the primary reason I stopped reading Newsweek. That and its tediously repetitive choice of cover story.

- Smirks

May 23, 2009 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kinsley has got it wrong! I was ready to cancel my Newsweek subscription because the magazine has gotten so superficial. The last straw was the resignation of Anna Quindlen, which pretty much Left the magazine as the domain of old white guys pushing a vision rusting in the junkpile of time (Will) or obnoxiously divisive (and Rove). And, I'm an old white guy myself. The recent issue of Newsweek was the first one it's taken more than 20 minutes to read in some time--more in-depth and intelligent. Yes, it can get better, and yes, they have derided The Economist while trying to aspire to be the American version, but the changes, on the whole, are much better. I hope they both improve and are successful.

- aztemblor

May 23, 2009 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

> The best weekly used to be the US News and World Report.- at least they were the most objective until they, like most newspapers, slipped down that lefty slope and lost most of their mature readers. Time and Newsweek are lame liberal rag sheets. <

- CyKick

May 23, 2009 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kinsley, you, TIME and Newsweek are all through.

-

May 23, 2009 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too long. Obviously his audience was his former employer, and his former competitor, the editors and the writers. A very bitter man. But, he is correct. At the newsstand: $6.95 for a very, very thin magazine. I can get a classic / novel / book at Discount Books / Half-Price Books for about $4.00 and will give me several days of reading pleasure on the beach. And, oh by the way: way too long. No wonder he was let go by Time.

- Bruce Oksol

May 23, 2009 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read the comments and didn't read the article.

- Ben Kinsley

May 23, 2009 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, pretty good article, but I suggest a name change. A name change which will suggest the soul of "Newsweek"? How bout OBAMAMAG?

- Randolph Phillips

May 23, 2009 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

long-time purchaser and reader - but not anymore -

- eve cusson

May 23, 2009 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with the obsevation that Mr. Kinsley is engaged in nothing more than sour grapes. If Newsweek hired him, he would be praising the revamp from the highest peak. But Michael has always bitched and moaned. He's a depressing fellow. As for Newsweek, when Jon Meacham was on O'Reilly a couple of weeks ago and said his mag was not partisan, even the staunchest liberal had to have his sip of milk coming out his nose. The only true "revamp" of Newsweek would be to make it a LESS partisan rag. And one comment about The New Republic, as this is my first visit - as I read some of the articles, I noticed past issue covers. Are there any issue covers that DO NOT have Obama on the cover?????????????

- Jeff Caulfield Albany, NY

May 23, 2009 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsmagazines are no longer about news, but about trends, fads and the open or lightly veiled opinions of the writers. No wonder they're no longer relevant. Newsweek is a horrible example. I am letting a multi-year subscription run out and no longer read the magazine, instead passing it straight from my mail box to the trash. It's not worth reading. Several weeks ago, I decided to try Newsweek once more. My field is economics, and a story labeled "Economy" caught my eye. Its headline proclaimed it to be an article about housing woes in California. I got as far as the third paragraph, which contained the words "buffoonish governor" and "Neanderthal Republicans." That piece should have been labeled "Opinion." It was a harshly opinionated screed, not an accurate and informed article about an economic situation. Time was once considered a valuable education tool. Years ago students said that if you read one year's issues cover to cover, you would pass the Foreign Service exam. Nobody says that nowadays. Most magazines and newspapers blame their slow deterioration in readership on competition from the Internet. but many are really suffering from a loss of vision and alienation from their audiences.

- Diogenes

May 23, 2009 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well Michael, there's always Fox News...

- Dr. Don

May 23, 2009 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is so delicious - the logical outcome of the Libs running the schools is folks who can't read. What are you guys whining about - you succeeded and this should be a celebration as liberal publication after liberal publication goes belly up. (I'm jumping for joy) You won! Just like you won with Obama; seeds take time to grow and develop, just like Poison Ivy....

- perrym

May 23, 2009 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gene W. absulutle perfect. Cheers!!!!!

- nummer_one_rhino

May 23, 2009 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My guess is after he got canned from Time he made overtures to Newsweek and they told him to feck off. This little piece of his is a symptom of what is commonly known on the internets as "butthurt".

- Moral Turpitude

May 23, 2009 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek's increasing irrelevance has more to do with their obvious bias than their inability to find precisely the right mix of news, commentary and font style. Kinsley should know more about this than most, when he presided over the ruination of Harper's.

- Benzopf

May 23, 2009 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Time and Newsweek are still being published? Who knew?

- Ralph Gizzip

May 23, 2009 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Non partisan? My question is, why not? Newsweek, Time, US News, New York Times, and so on will benefit greatly from dropping the charade they are non-partisan, impartial transmitters of the facts and admit what they are truly are: purveyors of advocacy journalism with a distinct point of view. I'm a libertarian who subscribes to Newsweek (and may continue to do so) to get the statist point of view from Zakaraia, Fineman, Weisberg, et. al. You can keep the "token" George Will who bores me to tears. Change the name to DemoNews Weekly and follow through with Meacham's promise to give me "original arguments" to "make [me] think in new ways". subscriptions will rise: truth in packaging.

- Madash

May 23, 2009 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I stopped reading Time and Newsweek years ago when I couldn't tell the difference between them and People and Us magazines.

- Joel W

May 23, 2009 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This commentary on Newsweek is as bad as Newsweek or Time. It was hard to read through. Either way, Newsweek needs to go the way of dinosaur. There's no need for this political trash. Where's the sponsored by DNC logo on the front cover? At least under the new scheme they could try for honesty. Instead it sounds as if they're up to the stunts they caused their demise.

- Dave

May 23, 2009 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Mikey maybe Keith Olberman will offer you a sympathetic ear.....you cry baby......your kind is dying off.....go Fox!

- Garfield MIke

May 23, 2009 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There were flashes of intellectual honesty in the article amid the minutia critiques but the fact that Kinsley couldn't comment on the hypocrisy of Newsweek pretending to take a non partisan tone, when its tone has become increasingly strident and partisan, showed there are severe limits to his intellectual honesty.

- HowardH

May 23, 2009 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem is no one can write at these mags. In fact, the writing in most of these magazines is so poor it is frequently unreadable. Moreover, there is a genuine lack of content. Everything is a tweet and a blurb. Unfortunately the concept of offering fine detail, long-term analysis of hard policy and news is gone. Frankly, these journalist barely possess the writing skills much less the expertise to write anything of any merit whatsoever. The trend in news reporting will continue - less context and analysis with more punditry and personal politics. PS - for the record the Internet changed nothing. There is still need for honest news and reporting. No one wants to fill the gap. I think they need to go somewhere between political science journal and Congressional Budget Office report - go hardcore and make it cool!

- Jim

May 23, 2009 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm so pleased over these news magazines slow and painful death. They reap what they sow and they sowed nothing but Liberal bias and alienated 50% of their potential readership and then they wonder why they're go'n under.

- Lucy

May 23, 2009 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek? Time Magazine? I vaguely remember seeing something like that, sometime...

- Robert

May 23, 2009 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kinsley is kind of like Spartacus, isn't he? Demonstrating, as he does, that the Internet is a means of delivery, and that nobody--certainly not anybody who would ignore it--can hope to outrun it. Quick note to those who hold that Newsweek is a liberal magazine, or that it could be such, if it were to hire people willing and able to do in-depth interviews with messengers of the people and such as Bruce Springsteen might be: When Bruce Springsteen signs his income tax form, he isn't signing a form labeled "For Democrats Only."

- sparkles plenty

May 26, 2009 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isn't anyone else tired of the inane ramblings of yet another conservative pundit with nothing better to do but heap more snarky snot on anything that represents change? Yeah, I mean you Kinsley. You were fired by Time for serving up the exact same hackneyed anti-liberal/anti-change crap over and over again. At least Newsweek had the balls to take stock, admit error and make change; endeavors you and your cronies would neither consider nor attempt. Get a life.

- Michael Smolen

May 29, 2009 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newsweek should go all-in and have a foldout of Obama on a bearskin rug in every issue. Seriously, Newsweek could be turned around tomorrow: publish a hard-hitting no-punches-pulled investigative piece on an Obama-related scandal. Take your pick: his assocation with ACORN, stinky connections with Chicago pols (c'mon, there's got to be dozens of them), tracing the connections with Ayers, digging into Obama's college and/or law school days (gotta be some treasure in there), going through the tax returns of his Cabinet appointees (ditto). The article has to make liberals squeal. That'll give Newsweek lots of publicity and a start on some credibility with those who don't do the backstroke in the Obama Kool-Aid.

- Occam's Beard

June 6, 2009 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close