Join 3,414 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Sleep. Consume.
September 25, 2006 9:49 PM   Subscribe

Because you can't handle the truth. These are this week's Newsweek covers, by region. But apparently only the US gets a special cover. The US gets a different website than the rest of the world too. I feel better informed already.
posted by Pastabagel (123 comments total)

 
It's not surprising, I mean, why would Americans care about American foreign policy?
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:54 PM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]


That's a very interesting pick up. So, who owns Newsweek and why the editorial decision?

But, doesn't everyone know that Afghanistan is a complete disaster? I'm sure the Canadians, British and Australians do, based on recent reporting about how hard it is for troops.

(mind you, I suspect the vast majority of Newsweek sales are in the US, it's a virtually unheardof magazine in Australia and I haven't seen it in asia)
posted by wilful at 9:55 PM on September 25, 2006


a comparison of cover stories from Shakespeare's Sister--

You don't have to drive very far from Kabul these days to find the Taliban. In Ghazni province's Andar district, just over a two-hour trip from the capital on the main southern highway, a thin young man, dressed in brown and wearing a white prayer cap, stands by the roadside ...

Annie Leibovitz is tired and nursing a cold, and she' s just flown back to New York on the red-eye from Los Angeles, where she spent two days shooting Angelina Jolie for Vogue. ...
posted by amberglow at 9:56 PM on September 25, 2006


wilful - Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post company, which owns a number of TV radio and cable stations in addition to the newspaper. They also own Kaplan, Inc., the test-prep company, and Slate.com.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:02 PM on September 25, 2006


Can someone post screenshots? I'm in Switzerland, and I get 3 identical sites, with only the ads differing slightly...
posted by slater at 10:04 PM on September 25, 2006


The circulation numbers for the magazine industry make one thing clear: The news genre may not be dead, but growth and energy is outside the traditional big three news magazines. Whether that is a permanent condition, or a reflection of their current hybrid format, is a question that cannot be answered here. But the attempts by these magazines to become younger by becoming lighter do not, according to the numbers, seem to be working. ...
posted by amberglow at 10:05 PM on September 25, 2006


Thanks, Big Business!

Seriously, I'm sure stupid Americans are ultimately responsible. But the news media is supposed to be run by driven people who care about informing us. **

The only thing I can compare this to is Communist China's papers. But at least they have the excuse of being government-run.

Who had the amazing comment about Communist nations spawning apologist government-run facilities, and Capitalist nations spawning apologist citizen-owned facilities?


**short pause for snarky laughter.... here.
posted by ®@ at 10:06 PM on September 25, 2006


here, slater
posted by amberglow at 10:09 PM on September 25, 2006


I can't take credit for having this idea first, but here's the info of people with a say in this sort of thing:


Patrick Hagerty
U.S. Publisher
(212) 445-4144
patrick.hagerty@newsweek.com

Gregory J. Osberg
EVP, Worldwide Publisher
(212) 445-5979
greg.osberg@newsweek.com

Mark Kostelec
Director of Worldwide Operations
(212) 445-4237
mark.kostelec@newsweek.com
posted by ®@ at 10:10 PM on September 25, 2006


Wow, what wimps we've become.
posted by orthogonality at 10:11 PM on September 25, 2006


Changing the cover to increase sales doesn't seem quite as bad as completely softening or removing the contents inside. Both websites have a link to the same story, so Americans are getting the story - it's just not advertised on the cover.

Foreign readers want to read about failures in American foreign policy, Newsweek delivers. Americans habitually demonstrate they love soft news, Newsweek delivers again. The quirks of supply and demand truth.
posted by trinarian at 10:15 PM on September 25, 2006


The war with Eurasia is, as always, going swimmingly.
posted by spazzm at 10:25 PM on September 25, 2006


Not the worst possible example of this, as trinarian notes, but I bet that actual content gaps are far more frequent and glaring between media sources than between national versions of same.

Unfortunately they don't make for as compelling a "gotcha!" moment, and they also allow people to slam the source as focusing on a problem because they are "____-ist". But my infrequent experience with American media is that you guys are even more sealed in an information vaccuum than us Canadians. We at least have some ties to the old Empire and so we have the CBC modelled after the BBC, and the BBC itself which, like any nation, concerns itself with problems of direct involvement (which, for England, is just about everywhere).

It would have been cute for Newsweek to actually cover the story differently but surely someone in the biz would have seen the potential for embarassment in that.
posted by dreamsign at 10:27 PM on September 25, 2006


more on Newsweek recently-- from the Intl Editor no less
posted by amberglow at 10:34 PM on September 25, 2006


This is despicable. And it is sad that this no longer comes as a surprise. Our fourth estate appears to have become merely the PR wing of executive branch.

Apart from the usual (protesting, handing out anarchy pamphlets, non-violent resistant, donating to public radio, snarky bumper stickers) what tools do the people have to enact change on the media that is not indirect to the nth degree? It's not like I can vote any of these media moguls out of office without spending billions of dollars on their stock ...

(This is a serious question. Because seriously, dudes, I'm flummoxed here.)
posted by chemoboy at 10:38 PM on September 25, 2006


The article is in all editions, right?

Well presumably, given the level of denial people seem to be in, putting on a "nicer" cover for the US version might actually lead to more sales in the US. Which might lead to more people reading the article in question than if it were featured on the front cover. It's probably a fundamentally pragmatic, commercial decision which may actually have the byproduct of wider penetration of the story.

Maybe.
posted by Jimbob at 10:42 PM on September 25, 2006


slater, see also

trinarian - Foreign readers want to read about failures in American foreign policy, Newsweek delivers. Americans habitually demonstrate they love soft news, Newsweek delivers again.

The problem with this is that every other region gets the same cover. There are no local stories of more interest to Europe or Asia than American foreign policy? Europeans would rather read about American screwups than the Hungarian govt lying about their economy to their own people?

And does it really increase sales? Does an Annie Leibovitz cover really generate more sales than a story about Afghanistan, considering at the very least the hundreds of thousands of military families who might be interested o read this? This isn't some hot Hollywood couple.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:44 PM on September 25, 2006


As alarmist as it is, I would imagine that that would actually affect sales for the positive. I'm sure this wasn't a financial decision, though I would like to see the same headline on the U.S. Edition.
posted by hoborg at 10:46 PM on September 25, 2006


I find it amazing to see comments actually saying Foreign readers want to read about failures in American Policy.

All I can say is pull the baseball bat out of your asses. What the rest of world really cares about is ---- you guessed it ----- what is going on in the world! Shock! Horror!

We can't help it if the USA doesn't help it's own image in any way and we don't have to pretend everything is nice and rosy when it isn't.
posted by Funmonkey1 at 11:01 PM on September 25, 2006


And is no one picking up on the fact that the only reason there's a Leibovitz article in the first place is because she has a book coming out?

At some point, the people and institution in leadership positions in society need to lead. The arguments about increasing sales are fine if we we were talking about products that have no real realtionship to the public interest.

But the press is supposed to work for us on our behalf, and to tell the reading public what is important and worth knowing. By putting leibovitz on the cover and the afghanistan losing-the-war story on the inside, Newsweek is saying that it more important for us to know about her new book than for us to know we are losing the war.

The question is whether this is in fact what Newsweek intended to communicate.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:03 PM on September 25, 2006


Who is Leibovitz's publisher? Is the publisher tied to the larger ownership of Newsweek and other media outlets? Is her audience mostly based in the United States?

Let's face facts, if we're dumb enough to elect W. twice, we just don't care about foreign policy enough for the media to sell profitable ad space.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:15 PM on September 25, 2006


Does an Annie Leibovitz cover really generate more sales than a story about Afghanistan

In the U.S. answer = yes. Consider that a magazine is a business, first and foremost. If they weren't in it to make money, they wouldn't be in it. So, how are magazines sold? By their covers. So their marketing department looks at the numbers and goes, "People in supermarkets and in airline book stores don't buy magazines with angry-looking foreigners on them."

There's no enemy action here. Just marketing. Any other inference other than that is a reach.

And is no one picking up on the fact that the only reason there's a Leibovitz article in the first place is because she has a book coming out?

True dat. Wouldn't surprise me if the cover allowed Newsweek to defray costs through barter or outright payment.

But the press is supposed to work for us on our behalf

We'd like to think that, wouldn't we? But the press isn't supported with tax dollars. It's a business, like anything else.
posted by frogan at 11:21 PM on September 25, 2006


Now I'm wondering what the rest of the world gets every time the U.S. is subjected to one of TIME's pop religion covers.

Also, not only does Leibovitz have a book coming out, but she scored a major coup already this month (laugh if you will, but it was no doubt big business for VF).
posted by anjamu at 11:22 PM on September 25, 2006


This is not really surprising. Those who follow the War on Drugs know that the mainstream media is a lapdog when it comes to that coverage. It's easy to impute similar tendencies or apprehension, depending on the weight of the topic, when covering other sensitive issues.
posted by daksya at 11:42 PM on September 25, 2006


Annie Leibovitz is america's most famous photographer? I've never heard of her. I have heard of Anne Geddes though. Sadly.
posted by delmoi at 11:46 PM on September 25, 2006


Oh, Geddes is Australian. hmm.
posted by delmoi at 11:46 PM on September 25, 2006


This in specific is an indictment of the American people, not Newsweek. The person who made the decision to put one thing on the cover or another is doing so to sell magazines in newstands.

Newsweek and their owers are guilty of helping to create an environment where such covers are more saleable, of course.

The news media in this country is a disgrace. They don't try to create a better customer, they reinforce a cycle of dumbing down.
posted by cell divide at 11:51 PM on September 25, 2006


Honestly I don't see this as a big deal. different sets of people will buy the magazine, I guess but who cares? everybody got the same article.

I guess people are upset that the failures in Afghanistan won't be broadcast to everyone who gets their news by looking at the covers of news magazines at the checkout counter?

Meh. People are blowing this way out of proportion.
posted by delmoi at 11:52 PM on September 25, 2006


If the Newsweek editors can take the world print edition, disguise it as a parochial gossip magazine, and sell it to Americans, they're doing a good job. That's especially true in cases like this, where a lot of Republicans probably won't buy the magazine at all if the cover proclaims a truth they refuse to accept. Get them to buy the magazine, then slip them the hard news as they page past pictures of movie stars.

Maybe it's different with web sites, though. People will just skip (or never notice) the articles that aren't linkety linked. On the CNN site at the moment, for example, the world sees that Japan has a new, young, but still Liberal Democratic (i.e., conservative) prime minister, while the US sees that the most important thing happening in the world right now is that a football game was played in a New Orleans arena, indicating, says the writer, that "New Orleans is back." Well, maybe, but Japan's leadership is still more important, even to USians.
posted by pracowity at 12:40 AM on September 26, 2006


Meh. People are blowing this way out of proportion.

They sure are. After all, that Leibovitz article is just *oozing* with journalistic merit. Consider this absolute pearl of an opening paragraph:

Annie Leibovitz is tired and nursing a cold, and she' s just flown back to New York on the red-eye from Los Angeles, where she spent two days shooting Angelina Jolie for Vogue. Like so many of her photo sessions, there was nothing simple about it. "I talked with Angelina before the shoot," says Leibovitz, who's famous for her preparation. "She felt like she was coming back from having the baby and she felt very sexy and ready to go."

How could the failure of the War on Terror in Afghanistan possibly compare with such riveting prose?
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:45 AM on September 26, 2006


If it's the same articles inside, and just different cover material, then, meh. The cover of a magazine isn't part of its news reporting, it's an advertisement for the magazine. For the US audience, Leibovitz is a better advertisement, apparently. For non-American markets, Afghanistan is a better advertisement.
posted by Bugbread at 12:53 AM on September 26, 2006


Don't fantasy, sci-fi, and happy "nostalgia" escapist movies do better during wartime? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

Lucky for me, sci-fi fan that I am, what with your perpetual war.
posted by dreamsign at 1:25 AM on September 26, 2006


Everything is okay, The Ford will look after us, I am certain.
oh, roof!
posted by TheDonF at 2:21 AM on September 26, 2006


Next step: remove the serious content from the non-US editions. Nothing to see anymore. Move along.
posted by imperium at 2:54 AM on September 26, 2006


Funmonkey1: look at world opinion polls. the world doesn't like Americans. everyone likes watching a bully get bloodied up a little bit, even if by someone you find more despicable. Like my Chinese roommate who is laughing at me trying to open a bottle of horrible wine.


hoborg: Call me jaded, but I think almost every decision in the [for profit] news media is financial. How much do you remember about the "Third World War," what the BBC called the war in the Congo? How many major earthquakes get as significant airtime as the ever-so-visual and stunning tsunami damage along pristine coastal towns? Stories are reported to get the max readership/viewership.
posted by trinarian at 3:40 AM on September 26, 2006


WE SHOULD INVADE ANNIE LEIBOVITZ AND CONVERT HER TO ANN COULTER
posted by quonsar at 4:17 AM on September 26, 2006


Speaking as a Brit ... who's Annie Leibovitz, anyway?
posted by cstross at 4:30 AM on September 26, 2006


Famous for her photos of rock stars for Rolling Stone mag in the 60's and 70's. Besides which, I really cannot remember the last time I read a Newsweak magazine.
posted by telstar at 5:00 AM on September 26, 2006


Last time I picked up the print edition of Time magazine I thought it was a joke (it seemed to have the heft and depth of People). If you want to pick up a real and excellent news magazine get the Economist. Anyhow, me thinks this whole different covers thing isn't as nefarious as it seems. National newspapers have always done it: How many covers dealing with Iraq can you have anyway? People are suffering from issue fatigue. The unamerican fucks in the white house count on that sort of thing to continue on in their sad sick ways. Hell even, here on Metafilter Matt has clamped down on too many FPP's dealing with Iraq minutae.
posted by Skygazer at 5:00 AM on September 26, 2006


Plus both Time and Newsweek, which btw is a property of the Washington Post owned by the Graham family (yes the famous Katherine Graham who stood behind Woodward/Bernstien and Editor Bill Bradlee who unearthed Watergate) and Warren Buffet I believe, have entertainment properties that need exposure.
posted by Skygazer at 5:07 AM on September 26, 2006


bad call. really.

the 10,436th story on how the war on the Murlisms is teh suck vs a story on a Jewish lesbian and her deceased Jewish partner and their family of children born out of artificial insemination and surrogate mothers?

no fucking way you're complaining about this. Bush is a two-term President, torture is A-OK with the Senate, any other place would have buried Bush under a landslide instead you got a 51-49 race (Diebold or not) -- Afghanistan and Iraq are a non-issue for middle America. a non-issue. because, you know, AMERICA WAS ATTACKED!!!
so revenge is cool.

I'd rather Mrs Soccermom in Kansas read about Christ-killing lesbians having a loving, beautiful relationship and mourning their dead partners like "normal" (ah!) non-Christ-killing heterosexuals do. seriously. it's a beautiful story. I don't care much for Leibovitz celebrity work, terribly derivative and shallow. but that story rocks -- Newsweek just screamed in Middle America's face that the fags and the carpetmunchers are, you know, human beings. it's a powerful message. Afghanistan is a lost cause in the media anyway -- the ragheads burned the Towers down. luckily, the fags didn't

kudos to Newsweek
seriously
posted by matteo at 5:38 AM on September 26, 2006


If you all are getting upset over this, don't compare CNN domestic with CNN international. They are completely separate networks, with the expected differences. Some cable systems and both US home satellite systems carry CNNi, so you might be able to compare them at home tonight.

Turner launched CNNi so that they could separately target the markets editorially. CNNi is smarter and has far less of the JonBenet crap.

Now think about this: Fox News is sent around the world in the same form as it is carried in the U.S.
posted by intermod at 6:00 AM on September 26, 2006


Damn, y'all. I'd bet this happens on Newsweek's cover every single freaking week. The "Losing" cover made it more pungent, I guess, but it's a shame it's happening at Leibovitz' expense. She's ok.

Famous for her photos of rock stars for Rolling Stone mag in the 60's and 70's.

She started as staff photographer for Rolling Stone in 1970, actually; her photos pretty much defined the celebrity 70s in US pop culture. I'd chalk this up to standard Boomer editor self-absorption as much as soft-selling the failure in Afghanistan. The architect of their celebrity memories was due, dammit!
posted by mediareport at 6:13 AM on September 26, 2006


Not enough info to go on, really. Do all the editions of Newsweek usually share the same cover? Do all the foreign ones usually share the same cover that's different from the US one?

If you can't answer those questions, you can't read anything into this example.

Plus, international versions of US publications like Newsweek are aimed at expats, not locals. Look at the Latin American one -- it's published in English.
posted by smackfu at 6:16 AM on September 26, 2006


Plus, international versions of US publications like Newsweek are aimed at expats, not locals. Look at the Latin American one -- it's published in English.

???
breaking news: a lot of non-USians can read foreign languages.
it's shocking, I know
posted by matteo at 6:19 AM on September 26, 2006



no fucking way you're complaining about this...any other place would have buried Bush under a landslide instead you got a 51-49 race (Diebold or not)


Us folks on the 49 side of things are always looking for new and innovative ways to complain about being embarrased to be Americans right now.
posted by fusinski at 6:21 AM on September 26, 2006


breaking news: a lot of non-USians can read foreign languages.

Sure, but I'm not buildng a business plan around it.
posted by smackfu at 6:22 AM on September 26, 2006


Do you want to know why it can happen here, America? Because we didn't want to know.
posted by JKevinKing at 6:24 AM on September 26, 2006


Apart from the usual (protesting, handing out anarchy pamphlets, non-violent resistant, donating to public radio, snarky bumper stickers) what tools do the people have to enact change on the media that is not indirect to the nth degree?
posted by chemoboy at 1:38 AM EST on September 26


The only solution is a market solution, since it's the market (or the perception of the market, which might be different) that's creating this difference. If you think it's a problem, don't give them money. Maybe write them a letter telling them so. This is only really effective if a lot of people do it.

Personally I get all my news from the internet, so I'm part of the problem: my news sources depend heavily upon advertising revenue because they sure aren't making any money off me.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:35 AM on September 26, 2006


National Geographic does the same thing. Different covers for different places - even within the USA. It has more to do with selling copies from newstands than anything else.
posted by stbalbach at 7:11 AM on September 26, 2006


Because You Can't Handle The Truth crashes my Firefox. I guess that means they are blocking me from the truth?
posted by JJ86 at 7:15 AM on September 26, 2006


JJ86 writes "Because You Can't Handle The Truth crashes my Firefox. I guess that means they are blocking me from the truth?"

Yes. It is deriding your truth-handling abilities!
posted by clevershark at 8:04 AM on September 26, 2006


A lot of people are saying the different covers reflects the fact that it's a business and that they are just trying to sell more magazines, but this reflects how jaded everyone has become.

The press has it's own special status in the Bill of Rights. They enjoy a constitutional protection of their "business" that other businesses, autos, oils, software, etc, don't have.

And Newsweek has the same profit motive outside the US that it has inside, so why will some puff piece human interest cover sell more than the war in the US, but that this wouldn't be true outside of it?

And finally, if it's all about selling magazines, maybe the content should be different too. Why should we have the same news? Maybe in pro-Bush states the war coverage should highlight only the positive aspects, patriotism, building schools, etc, and ignore the negative, whereas the NY and CA editions should highlight the failures.

Maybe in the name of selling more, the news outlets could buy your search and browsing history from google, determine where your politics and interests lie based on that, and feed you a newsweek or CNN websites containing only those things you'll like and be comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that, right? It's all about selling more after all.

Enough is enough. The bill of rights includes a freedom of the press because it was understood 200 years ago that the press' business was to challenge and criticize the established authority, not to sell more copies of nonsense.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:09 AM on September 26, 2006


Does anyone know if Canadians get the US or the non-US vesrion? I'd think given our role in Afghanastan and our losses in the last 6 months that the non-Leibovitz would be the way to go.
posted by aclevername at 8:17 AM on September 26, 2006


Does an Annie Leibovitz cover really generate more sales than a story about Afghanistan

In the U.S. answer = yes.


No. Not on a newsmagazine---see my link above. For People mag, yes, but no one picks up Newsweek for their pop culture coverage. The circulation of all 3 big weekly newsmagazines has been declining for years now.

This is cowardice on their part more than trying to drive sales. The very words "Losing Afghanistan" are a challenge and indictment they're not willing to make and release publicly here--on every supermarket and bookstore and newsstand.
posted by amberglow at 8:19 AM on September 26, 2006


And most people don't even know what she looks like (or care)--they only know what her photos of other people look like--her on the cover will not attract people at all.
posted by amberglow at 8:21 AM on September 26, 2006


Well that certainly is an interesting conception of rights, Pastabagel. I mean, power and responsibility going together and all that. But do point out where in the Bill of Rights it says that rights are lost if not continuously exercised at full volume.

Rights are about having the freedom to do something, not the obligation. If there is an obligation it is moral, not legal. If you're saying "use it or lose it", I'm not sure I agree. Just because Newsweek chooses to pander (and I'm not sure that's what's happened here) it doesn't mean that you get to tar the entire "press" because of it. Some gutsy little paper may be exercising its rights to free expression, and that's what its for.

But by all means let's determine the ambit of press freedom by what you consider to be "copies of nonsense". That's freedom.

And Newsweek has the same profit motive outside the US that it has inside, so why will some puff piece human interest cover sell more than the war in the US, but that this wouldn't be true outside of it?

You ask this like it's Newsweek's business to answer. Methinks you are experiencing a little displaced anger for Newsweek's domestic clients, the American people.

On preview, if it is cowardice, amberglow, then certainly it is financially-motivated cowardice. What other kind would matter? There is a growing mob ready to punish the messenger at every turn regardless of its market niche. We live in the age of freedom fries, for goodness sake.
posted by dreamsign at 8:28 AM on September 26, 2006


Using the phrases “you can’t handle the truth” and “I feel better informed already” in the original post suggests, obviously, that readers of the American copy are not being given the truth and are being less well informed. But you would only be less well informed by reading the American copy if you only read the cover. But it’s very strange to judge a magazine solely on the information contained on its cover (there’s a saying about doing that!) – So why put it that way? Perhaps to deceive those who read it into thinking the Afghanistan article had been removed entirely from the American copy? Some people in this thread seem to have responded as if that’s the case. I can hardly blame them

By putting leibovitz on the cover and the afghanistan losing-the-war story on the inside, Newsweek is saying that it more important for us to know about her new book than for us to know we are losing the war. The question is whether this is in fact what Newsweek intended to communicate.

So it’s not an issue of being less well informed and having the truth withheld after-all. It’s a question of whether, in putting the Afghanistan story inside of the American copy, Newsweek sought to claim that the Leibovitz story was more important. Well, that’s a slightly less juicy issue. One worth of a front page post? I don’t know.
posted by ed\26h at 8:29 AM on September 26, 2006


Does anyone know if Canadians get the US or the non-US vesrion?

Canada gets the US version:

Global editions

Newsweek publishes four English-language editions and seven local-language editions.

English-language editions include:

the U.S. edition, distributed in the U.S. and Canada;
the Europe edition, distributed in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa;
the Asia edition, distributed throughout Asia;
and the Latin America edition, distributed throughout Latin America.
Local-language editions include:

The Bulletin with Newsweek, distributed in Australia and New Zealand.
Newsweek Nihon Ban - Japanese-language newsweekly produced with TBS-Britannica.
Newsweek Hankuk Pan - Korean-language newsweekly produced with Joong-ang Ilbo.
Newsweek en Español - Spanish-language newsweekly produced with News for America in Mexico City.
Newsweek Bil Logha Al-Arabia - Arabic-language newsweekly produced with Dar Al-Watan Publishing Group in Kuwait.
Newsweek Polska - Polish-language newsweekly produced with Axel Springer Polska.
Russky Newsweek - Russian-language newsweekly produced with Axel Springer Russia.
Newsweek Select - Chinese-language monthly produced with Vertex Group.

posted by dreamsign at 8:31 AM on September 26, 2006


If you don't like baby pictures you must be with the terrorists!
posted by clevershark at 8:37 AM on September 26, 2006


On preview, if it is cowardice, amberglow, then certainly it is financially-motivated cowardice. What other kind would matter?
This kind: Newsweek Apologizes--
Inaccurate Report on Koran Led to Riots
(2005) -- and more on that here, including that fact that the govt verified it pre-publication, then attacked Newsweek for running it after people died because of it.


Nation editorial on the covers: ..."The Rise of Jihadism" is still inside, of course; now, a secondary story. After all, Angelina Jolie is ours, while a distant botch of a war in Afghanistan..? As the magazine's editors clearly concluded, while the rest of the world considers the return of the Taliban, let us eat cake.
posted by amberglow at 8:38 AM on September 26, 2006


Perhaps to deceive those who read it into thinking the Afghanistan article had been removed entirely from the American copy?

And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids!
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:41 AM on September 26, 2006


But it’s very strange to judge a magazine solely on the information contained on its cover (there’s a saying about doing that!) – So why put it that way?

Because everyone knows that the cover stories are considered to be the most important/news worthy stories. Not putting the story about the Afghanistan war on the cover colors the way the information is taken in: Many, many consumers are accustomed to scanning the covers of magazines and headlines to get important information quickly.

The point some of you are missing here is that we, the people here on MeFi griping about the Newspeak--er, Newsweek--coverage ARE the consumers of the news. We have every right to complain about the quality of the consumer products being foisted on us, and you who would criticize us for exercising that right are fundamentally misguided.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:42 AM on September 26, 2006


more from Greg Palast: ...For their good behavior, I'm giving Newsweek and its owner, the Washington Post, this week's Yellow Streak Award for Craven Cowardice in Journalism.
As always, the competition is fierce, but Newsweek takes the honors by backing down on Mike Isikoff's exposé of cruelity, racism and just plain bone-headed incompetence by the US military at the Guantanamo prison camp.
Isikoff cited a reliable source that among the neat little "interrogation" techniques used to break down Muslim prisoners was putting a copy of the Koran into a toilet.
In the old days, Isikoff's discovery would have led to Congressional investigations of the perpetrators of such official offence. The Koran-flushers would have been flushed from the military, panels would have been impaneled and Isikoff would have collected his Pulitzer.
No more. Instead of nailing the wrong-doers, the Bush Administration went after the guy who reported the crime, Isikoff. ...

posted by amberglow at 8:44 AM on September 26, 2006


What's most sad about this is that they're actually avoiding making news--Karzai is in town this week.
posted by amberglow at 9:02 AM on September 26, 2006


It's always interesting to check out newsmap to see what different stories capture the clicks of different national audiences. Naturally it's unscientific, as it's mainly english-language based news, but over time it reveals that we 'merkins are simply more unwilling to look... and that's just counting the internets watchers.
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:03 AM on September 26, 2006


Because everyone knows that the cover stories are considered to be the most important/news worthy stories. Not putting the story about the Afghanistan war on the cover colors the way the information is taken in: Many, many consumers are accustomed to scanning the covers of magazines and headlines to get important information quickly.

So – Newsweek are withholding the truth from and failing to inform solely those who scan the cover of their magazine but neither buy nor read it. And in using those phrases, this is all the original post was trying to say?

We have every right to complain about the quality of the consumer products being foisted on us, and you who would criticize us for exercising that right are fundamentally misguided.

I’ve said nothing about this.
posted by ed\26h at 9:05 AM on September 26, 2006


America has become like that old relative from whom you hide the reality of the outside world. "Shhh, Grandpa can hear you, don't talk about Afghanistan in here!"
posted by stinkycheese at 9:07 AM on September 26, 2006


So – Newsweek are withholding the truth from and failing to inform solely those who scan the cover of their magazine but neither buy nor read it.

I didn't say that. What Newsweek did, effectively, was to tell their readers: This story about Afghanistan isn't a front page story, which most readers take to mean the story isn't that important, or isn't well supported, because that's typically what it means when a story doesn't make the front page. Whether it's intentional or not, that's what this does. That's all I'm saying.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:15 AM on September 26, 2006


stinky, people are really interested in all of it tho (it's our money and in our name and with our young)--it's the gatekeepers of info that either aren't, or are afraid of telling it all or just don't think we need to know for whatever reasons.
posted by amberglow at 9:17 AM on September 26, 2006


Pastabagel : "And Newsweek has the same profit motive outside the US that it has inside, so why will some puff piece human interest cover sell more than the war in the US, but that this wouldn't be true outside of it?"

Because consumers in different regions have different tastes?

Pastabagel : "And finally, if it's all about selling magazines, maybe the content should be different too. Why should we have the same news?"

Good point. My copy of the Economist (Asian edition) had articles that apparently weren't in my parents' copy (North American edition). And I'm not talking Afghanistan or other US issues, but articles about stuff in Asia. CNN international is different than CNN US. It's not exactly unusual that a media company targets the contents of their media at the market they're selling to.

Pastabagel : "The bill of rights includes a freedom of the press because it was understood 200 years ago that the press' business was to challenge and criticize the established authority, not to sell more copies of nonsense."

Eh? That's news to me (no pun intended). I thought it was because it was understood that the press was not a puppet of the government, and should be able to say what it wants, without government dictation. By the same token, we all have freedom of religion; does that mean that it is understood that our business is to practice religion, and that us atheists are shirking our responsibilities?

saulgoodman : "Because everyone knows that the cover stories are considered to be the most important/news worthy stories."

I think you're missing the half of this thread that is saying that it doesn't consider the cover stories to be the most important/newsworthy. You're basically saying "Everyone knows A, except the people that don't, and I'm not going to count them, so...everyone knows A!"
posted by Bugbread at 9:18 AM on September 26, 2006


saulgoodman : "We have every right to complain about the quality of the consumer products being foisted on us, and you who would criticize us for exercising that right are fundamentally misguided."

Who is criticizing you for exercising that right? Some people are criticizing others for, in their opinion, exaggerating the severity of the situation, but I haven't seen anyone criticize anyone else for exercising the right to complain about things.
posted by Bugbread at 9:19 AM on September 26, 2006


Hell even, here on Metafilter Matt has clamped down on too many FPP's dealing with Iraq minutae.
posted by Skygazer at 5:00 AM PST



Yea, who wants to see US government agencies charged with the reconstruction of Iraq allocated $362m to non-existent "dummy vendors", according to a report by the watchdog overseeing the reconstruction effort.

Fraud is small minutae.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:23 AM on September 26, 2006


News about celebs sell more to Americans than the war, thus the different cover sells more in America.

Its about money, the news is the same, just different cover.. Not happy that they treat the minority of people who do care, but the magazine is targeted towards ms. joe six pack.
posted by IronWolve at 9:28 AM on September 26, 2006


saulgoodman: So when you said:

Not putting the story about the Afghanistan war on the cover colors the way the information is taken in: Many, many consumers are accustomed to scanning the covers of magazines and headlines to get important information quickly.

You didn’t mean:

Newsweek are withholding the truth from and failing to inform solely those who scan the cover of their magazine but neither buy nor read it.

But instead you meant:

What Newsweek did, effectively, was to tell their readers: This story about Afghanistan isn't a front page story, which most readers take to mean the story isn't that important, or isn't well supported, because that's typically what it means when a story doesn't make the front page.

Clearly you meant nothing of the sort. Not least as your second statement talks only of readers and the first only of “consumers” who solely browse the cover. But anyway, OK. For all I know, perhaps you’re right to some degree. But even if you’re entirely right, the terms used in the original post would hardly be appropriate to describe what you’re talking about. What I am saying is that in light of this, it looks very much like the original post was trying to deceive people into the thinking the Afghanistan article had been removed entirely from the American copy.
posted by ed\26h at 9:37 AM on September 26, 2006


The press has it's own special status in the Bill of Rights. They enjoy a constitutional protection of their "business" that other businesses, autos, oils, software, etc, don't have.

You're misunderstanding the usage of the word "press" in the Bill of Rights. It includes business, yes, but the point of the protection was not ONLY to protect business, but to protect guys like Thomas Paine writing Common Sense and Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence. To say that the First Amendment is just about business actually limits its power.

Does an Annie Leibovitz cover really generate more sales than a story about Afghanistan

In the U.S. answer = yes.

No. Not on a newsmagazine


Go get a job in marketing.

Can the marketing guys make mistakes? Yes. But trust me, they did this on purpose, and the purpose was to move more magazines off the shelves, and they had data to back up their decision.
posted by frogan at 9:39 AM on September 26, 2006


yes, ed\26h. Very clever. You've found a formal inconsistency in my statements. good for you. that dismisses the substantive content of my arguments completely.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:53 AM on September 26, 2006


You're basically saying "Everyone knows A, except the people that don't, and I'm not going to count them, so...everyone knows A!"

You know I'm using "Everyone" as informal shorthand for "It's broadly understood," or words to that affect, but then, let's focus on the typographical features of what I'm saying next--please enlighten me: what do the proportional distribution of vowels and consonants in the words I use tell us about the strength of my argument?
posted by saulgoodman at 10:00 AM on September 26, 2006


frogan, I work in magazines. Covers are an art, not a science, and my point stands. We have many celeb and pop culture weekly magazines--we only have 3 big weekly newsmagazines. People do not pick up Newsweek for their popculture stories, nor for a cover of a woman unknown personally to many. Liebowitz is not Oprah, nor Angelina, nor Brad, nor any of those celebrities--she's not newsworthy, and is only big enough to rate a cover on Vanity Fair or something like that--somewhere where every single reader knows her, and her work.

Go check out Newsweek's sales figures, and especially their newsstand sales figures.

and from last year: ...But like McCarrick, Newsweek vp, worldwide publisher Greg Osberg doesn’t want to get too cozy with Hollywood. “We might sell a few extra newsstand copies, but it might shock our [subscriber] base,” he said.
Osberg said that because single copy amounts to less than 4 percent of Newsweek’s total sales, which grew in the first half, he’s not terribly worried about newsstand. ...
posted by amberglow at 10:20 AM on September 26, 2006


Very clever. You've found a formal inconsistency in my statements. good for you. that dismisses the substantive content of my arguments completely.

If I have translated your sarcasm correctly, you are saying that in pointing out your intellectual dishonesty I was claiming to have refuted your argument. But clearly it was not for that reason. I addressed your argument, where you defended the wording of the original post, after this point.
posted by ed\26h at 10:26 AM on September 26, 2006


What I am saying is that in light of this, it looks very much like the original post was trying to deceive people into the thinking the Afghanistan article had been removed entirely from the American copy.
posted by ed\26h at 12:37 PM EST on September 26 [+] [!]


I'm sorry if you got that impression but I thought the post was clearly about the covers. And I don't know that the Us and all the various regional editions contain the same articles, verbatim. I simply don't know either way.

About the freedom of the press thing, when I wrote "the press's business" I was using business loosely to mean role or function, not business in the financial entitiy sense. The function of the press is served by individuals, corporations, etc. What the press does, comment, report and editorialize on events and government, is protected, the way what automakers do, build and sell cars, is not constitutionally protected.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:27 AM on September 26, 2006


Venga, fair enough, Pastabagel.
posted by ed\26h at 11:59 AM on September 26, 2006


If I have translated your sarcasm correctly, you are saying that in pointing out your intellectual dishonesty I was claiming to have refuted your argument.

Didn't mean to fly off the handle there, but there's no intellectual dishonesty here on my part. When I wrote:

Not putting the story about the Afghanistan war on the cover colors the way the information is taken in: Many, many consumers are accustomed to scanning the covers of magazines and headlines to get important information quickly.

I meant that comment to encompass both the idea that many consumers get their news from scanning magazine covers and headlines (including those who buy the magazines, who may even choose to read the cover stories first because they consider them to be the more important ones) and the idea that not including the story on the cover colors the way other readers interepret the information. Sorry if all of those ideas weren't more explicit, but I think they were pretty easy to parse out, with a little effort.

Not to suggest you weren't being intellectually honest when you challenged my intellectual honesty, of course.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:09 PM on September 26, 2006


Call me jaded, but I think almost every decision in the [for profit] news media is financial.

Jaded! (you asked for it)

Like when ABC put on Path to 9/11 totally commercial free. (so much profit there)
Or, perhaps, corporate owned media have their own agenda? (the curse of the "have mores")
posted by nofundy at 12:16 PM on September 26, 2006


frogan, I work in magazines.

So did I.

Covers are an art, not a science

Covers are neither art nor science. They are a business tool. When Vanity Fair put Annie Leibowitz's shot of a pregnant Demi Moore on the cover, did you think they did it for artistic reasons? Hell no. They did it to get people talking about the magazine and buying more magazines.

People do not pick up Newsweek for their popculture stories ... Liebowitz is not Oprah, nor Angelina, nor Brad, nor any of those celebrities--she's not newsworthy

So why is Annie Fucking Leibowitz on the cover of Newsweek? The only possible answer is, "Because Newsweek thought that would sell more magazines than their other options at the time."

If you think there's a reason that doesn't eventually boil down to that one sentence, get out of the magazine business.

Go check out Newsweek's sales figures, and especially their newsstand sales figures.

Didja ever think that Newsweek might be attempting to change their tune? You realize they're not locked into one, monolithic, unchanging approach with every single issue, right? They can decide to go after other markets, no?
posted by frogan at 12:24 PM on September 26, 2006


Americans don't wanna hear or see bad news about Afghanistan. They ain't interested in the 4th amendment or torture either.
posted by wrapper at 2:10 PM on September 26, 2006


But trust me, they did this on purpose, and the purpose was to move more magazines off the shelves, and they had data to back up their decision.

Basically - this is the situation in a nutshell. Newsweek has been going since the 30s - they know exactly what covers are going to going to shift more units in what regions/markets. Most magazines do this - Rolling Stone, Time, etc

So what this instance tells us is that Americans don't like to focus outside their borders. This is news?
posted by Sparx at 2:28 PM on September 26, 2006


They are a business tool. When Vanity Fair put Annie Leibowitz's shot of a pregnant Demi Moore on the cover, did you think they did it for artistic reasons? Hell no. They did it to get people talking about the magazine and buying more magazines.

You neglect to make a distinction between a shot of Annie herself versus a shot of a celebrity. That's your mistake--and Newsweek's. People are now talking all right--but not buying.

When a person walks by a newstand or waits on line at a supermarket, this insipid and truly anonymous cover will not entice them to buy--even if they knew who she was. Newsweek knows that, but did not want another shitstorm like they had with the koran thing.
posted by amberglow at 2:34 PM on September 26, 2006


The Afghanistan cover is the one that would have made more money for them, and generated more buzz. There's no question of that at all. They are a news magazine and not People or US or In Touch (those 3, by the way, would never put Annie Liebowitz herself on a cover)
posted by amberglow at 2:35 PM on September 26, 2006


saulgoodman : "You know I'm using 'Everyone' as informal shorthand for 'It's broadly understood,' or words to that affect, but then, let's focus on the typographical features of what I'm saying next--please enlighten me: what do the proportional distribution of vowels and consonants in the words I use tell us about the strength of my argument?"

Eh? Yes, I know that you're saying "It's broadly understood", and I'm saying "We have here a thread where something like half of the commenters are saying that's not the case. It doesn't seem nearly as broadly understood as you are implying". My argument wasn't about a literal interpretation of "Everyone". It was saying "I know that by 'Everyone' you mean 'the vast majority', but this thread appears to indicate that even that is wrong".

nofundy : "Like when ABC put on Path to 9/11 totally commercial free. (so much profit there)"

(sarcasm)
And what about those Coca Cola billboards? They spend money to show you pictures of people drinking Coke, but don't even charge you to look at them. There's no profit there, Coca-Cola must be putting up billboards out of the goodness of its heart, and not for any profit motive. Also, Toyota commercials on TV: I can see them for free! Toyota is obviously not motivated by profit.
(/sarcasm)

So, yeah, sometimes companies spend money without seeing immediate profit as advertising, which nets them profit later. An example of this could also be showing something without commercials, which gives people a better image of your network, which nets more viewers, which allows you to charge the advertisers you already have for other shows more money, because their advertisements are reaching a bigger audience.

amberglow : "The Afghanistan cover is the one that would have made more money for them, and generated more buzz."

I'm not disagreeing with you (you know the American market better than I do), but I have two questions that keep popping up:
1) If it would have made more money, why didn't they use it?
2) If Leibovitz is so bad at moving copy, why didn't they use some other, third article as their cover? Is there nothing in Newsweek that would entice readers more than Leibovitz except for the Afghanistan article?
posted by Bugbread at 3:45 PM on September 26, 2006


I dunno, amberglow - an insipid cover can sell better than a controversial one. The best judges of a magazine cover's sales potential I've ever known were Big Issue sellers, possibly because a day's sales meant the difference between sleeping rough rather than in accomodation (or getting enough smack/booze/whatever, rather that not enough, if you're feeling cynical). They would take an unknown white woman on the cover over a brown chap with a gun, any day (to the extent that covers featuring men, black or asian people, or graphics were always condemned by the sellers as unsellable...)

On preview: 1) If it would have made more money, why didn't they use it?

Precisely.
posted by jack_mo at 4:14 PM on September 26, 2006


they didn't use it because it would have created another shitstorm and the administration and rightwing would have come down on them again. On all criteria--the image itself, the subject, the newsworthyness, the layout, etc--this is a weaker cover than the other.
posted by amberglow at 5:07 PM on September 26, 2006


There is a better fluffy human-interest story--Bed Behavior--but they just did a women's issue and i guess didn't want to do 2 in a row or something.
posted by amberglow at 5:10 PM on September 26, 2006


Eh? Yes, I know that you're saying "It's broadly understood", and I'm saying "We have here a thread where something like half of the commenters are saying that's not the case.

Let's put it to a vote then.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:27 PM on September 26, 2006


early results suggest you were mistaken, bugbread.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:51 PM on September 26, 2006


they didn't use it because it would have created another shitstorm and the administration and rightwing would have come down on them again

Love ya, amberglow, but you really can't be sure of that, and while your explanation is reasonable, so's the marketing one. My guess is it was a little bit of both (horrors!).
posted by mediareport at 6:55 PM on September 26, 2006


I can't buy the marketing explanation nor the solely profit one--she's not famous enough at all. She's not known nor is her face known. She's only known for her pics of other people, and only known by some--and her name is not big enough on the cover anyway to stand out.

Avoiding a totally newsworthy topic (Afghanistan) on a week when Karzai is scheduled to be visiting the White House (which has been known for months) and things have been flaring up there is inexcusable for a weekly newsmagazine. Absolutely inexcusable--they aren't not covering it because of a big star. They aren't not covering it because of some scandal. They aren't not covering it because Annie Liebowitz is suddenly a household name or has done anything important lately (unlike Angelina, btw).
posted by amberglow at 7:38 PM on September 26, 2006


Please explain from a marketing standpoint why Annie Liebowitz beats "Losing Afghanistan" in big letters (this should be good)
posted by amberglow at 7:39 PM on September 26, 2006


And don't forget to explain why Annies' the better choice for current and potential Newsweek readers.
posted by amberglow at 7:43 PM on September 26, 2006


Relax, I'm not saying I think the marketing guys are right, just that it's plausible that they *think* they're right.

Ya ever met any marketing guys? Again, it's possible that fear of neocon attacks is at play, but it's possible other factors are as well. Perhaps that doesn't stoke the righteous flames as much as you'd like, but I think it's more accurate.
posted by mediareport at 7:57 PM on September 26, 2006


Please give me one plus for Annie Liebowitz as a cover draw, as opposed to the very striking and immediately eye-catching and timely Afghanistan cover--just one. It's actually funny and pathetic that the picture of a photographer who has specialized in iconic, eye-catching pictures is represented by such a faraway and weak one that doesn't read at all.
posted by amberglow at 8:10 PM on September 26, 2006


If an article on Afghanistan says, in summary, “this is awful, it’s going very badly, we’re losing” or something like that, it’s difficult to see how readers are going to think: “Hey – if it’s on page eight, it’s less true than if it were on page one! So I can safely disregard it as it isn’t useful information.” Or indeed reasonable any variant thereof. And yes, I suppose as a result of its page placement less readers total may see it. But as I’ve made clear that hardly warrants the alarmist terms in the original post, which could easily be, and apparently were, misconstrued. Now, Pastabagel has said that this was a genuine error on his/her part, stemming from not knowing that all editions carried the same article, so I don’t want to carry on about that too much, but as a result of that acknowledgement, there now seems even less reason for you to defend those terms. Perhaps in light of all this you will now see that it’s unreasonable to refer to Newsweek in Orwellian terms or hold them as some arm of governmentally controlled propaganda. But perhaps not. After all – this is Metafilter.

Not to suggest you weren't being intellectually honest when you challenged my intellectual honesty, of course.

Being as at first you yourself admitted to the this, and only in a later post defended it, it hardly seems fair to insinuate that I, in claiming you had done so, was being intellectually dishonest myself.

And PS: Referring to a survey which at the time of this post has had a total of six respondents is hardly scientific; not least as using the term “typically” in the question itself could, where this issue is concerned, quite reasonably be seen as a case of loading it.
posted by ed\26h at 9:08 PM on September 26, 2006


... "Afghanistan is sort of the first victory in the war on terror. For that to be going badly is tremendous," Zakaria said. ...

But not tremendous enough to be the cover here, huh?
posted by amberglow at 9:09 PM on September 26, 2006


(^ saulgoodman)
posted by ed\26h at 9:11 PM on September 26, 2006


Please explain from a marketing standpoint why Annie Liebowitz beats "Losing Afghanistan" in big letters (this should be good)

Because housewives at the supermarket in Terre Haute, Indiana are tired of bad news.
posted by frogan at 9:36 PM on September 26, 2006


Yeah, a sealed brown paper bag would be better from a marketing perspective, in this case.
posted by dreamsign at 9:46 PM on September 26, 2006


Because housewives at the supermarket in Terre Haute, Indiana are tired of bad news.

And what? They're not going to pick up their usual People or US or In Touch, but instead will pick up Newsweek--a news magazine with "News" in the actual title in big letters--just so they can read something other than news? Sure. Just like they've not been doing all these years up til now? Sure. They really are starved for non-bad-news choices and usually go right for Newsweek when they want something other than bad news, yes? Newsweek really is the logical and emotional choice on the checkout line when you're tired of bad news, hmmm? sure.
posted by amberglow at 9:53 PM on September 26, 2006


You just don't seem to want to admit that someone might think -- correctly or incorrectly -- that a picture of a woman and cute little blonde-haired children is more appealing to a certain audience at a certain time than a scary-looking "foreigner" that reminds people of killing and dying and confusion and guilt. It must be something else, right? Some kind of conspiracy. A wide-ranging plan to make you ... docile. And Republican.

Dude, get over yourself.

The conversation went like this:
"What's our big story?"
"Afghanistan."
"Cool. Do we have a cover shot?"
"Yep, here it is."
"Awesome. But..."
"But what?"
"Our focus group of people that buy from newstands says they're not interested in it."
"Do we have anything else?"
"Well, Annie Leibowitz's book publisher wants to buy a truckload of ads if we give them the cover."
"Cool. So, we have options. Wanna break for another round of cocktails?"
"OK."
posted by frogan at 10:15 PM on September 26, 2006


He's like an automaton when he gets like this, frogan. Just let him be and circle 'round in another thread.
posted by mediareport at 11:40 PM on September 26, 2006


Because they like to think of themselves as people who would read Newsweek?

Because they like to make other people think of them as people who read Newsweek?

Because they want something respectable to put overtop of that porno mag when leaving the convenience store?

Because they like to be informed but -- goodness, no! -- not shocked out of complacency?

Do I really need to go on?
posted by dreamsign at 3:31 AM on September 27, 2006


Being as at first you yourself admitted to the this,

Bugbread: When did I admit to "the this"? Now who's being dishonest.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:34 AM on September 27, 2006


The ironic thing is that even an arts/entertainment piece like the Annie Liebovitz article is still probably watered down to avoid offending American sensibilities. For example, there is probably no mention of her relationship with Susan Sontag, which was omitted from most obituaries of Sontag, including the one that ran in the New York Times. Magazines are so worried about backlash from right-wing ignoramuses that even a realistic depiction of Liebovitz's personal life is out of the question, let alone a reality-based assessment of how our country is doing in Afghanistan (not to mention the foreign policy news that Newsweek foregrounds in non-U.S. editions).
posted by jonp72 at 6:39 AM on September 27, 2006


Twas I, not bugbread; this is what I was referring to:

Yes, ed\26h. Very clever. You've found a formal inconsistency in my statements. good for you.
posted by ed\26h at 6:43 AM on September 27, 2006


Twas I, not bugbread; this is what I was referring to:

Yes, ed\26h. Very clever. You've found a formal inconsistency in my statements. good for you.


oops--I mean ed\26h. sorry bugbread.

Admitting a "formal inconsistency" is hardly the same thing as admitting intellectual dishonesty.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:09 AM on September 27, 2006


No problem.
posted by Bugbread at 7:35 AM on September 27, 2006


Well, when you originally said that, what were you actually referring to? And given that now we’re merely trying to resolve another point and are no longer discussing the main issue (the one of whether or not Newsweek were withholding the truth by running the alternative cover on the American copy) can I take it that it’s settled?
posted by ed\26h at 7:38 AM on September 27, 2006


Because they like...
I'd laugh you out of the Newsweek conference room if we worked there and that was how you tried to sell people on not running the Afghan cover, which the Int'l Editor himself called "tremendous". All those reasons are reasons not to buy Newsweek at all, ever, which, given their declining readership, is what's been happening, especially when you have hundreds of other choices if not thousands.

The big 3 newsmagazines sell and promote themselves on their ability to go beyond cable news and daily newspapers with extensive analysis and facts and research on important events and trends and news that those other places can't or won't provide.
posted by amberglow at 7:41 AM on September 27, 2006


can I take it that it’s settled?

it's all good. we're just being pedantic now.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:48 AM on September 27, 2006


The big 3 newsmagazines sell and promote themselves

Well, you got that part right at least.
posted by frogan at 10:50 AM on September 27, 2006


For example, there is probably no mention of her relationship with Susan Sontag

Er, it helps to actually read the links. Newsweek doesn't specifically state the two were lovers, but Leibovitz' long-term relationship with Sontag takes up a good chunk of the cover story.
posted by mediareport at 4:19 PM on September 27, 2006


Daily Show covered it tonight. They don't agree with you guys either.
posted by amberglow at 8:56 PM on September 27, 2006


Daily Show covered it tonight. They don't agree with you guys either.

Oh Jesus, that means I suck. You didn't tell me I suck!

;-)
posted by frogan at 9:47 PM on September 27, 2006


Daily Show: Put Your Balls on Wolf Blitzer's Head
posted by homunculus at 2:35 PM on September 29, 2006


« Older With nothing to lose...  |  Banned Books Week... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments