2002 National Magazine Award Finalists
March 21, 2002 9:26 AM   Subscribe

2002 National Magazine Award Finalists Maybe the heavily nominated New Yorker will some day turn a profit. Then again, maybe that's not what it's all about (sure helps when the parents have deep pockets).
posted by Voyageman (8 comments total)
It's nice to see Oxford American win something. It's a great magazine that mostly goes unrecognized.
posted by ColdChef at 9:33 AM on March 21, 2002

I sure LOVE National Geographic's Adventure magazine. I read it cover-to-cover as soon as it arrives in my mailbox. I'm glad it's a finalist. As far as the General Excellence Online category, I'm not so sure about Rollingstone.com. I find that site unattractive and buggy.
posted by culberjo at 9:42 AM on March 21, 2002

Si Newhouse will be pleased. Conde Nast has 6 magazines in there. However, Gourmet gets mentioned 3 times and Saveur once yet nothing for Bon Appetit? Hogwash I say.
posted by remlapm at 10:37 AM on March 21, 2002

for design, *Surface is a lock.
(well, if I was judging...)
posted by Dean King at 10:54 AM on March 21, 2002

The New Yorker (and Vanity Fair) have this great privilege, a publisher who allows the editor to spend a shitload of money, not really caring about the bottom line. Remnick does not abuse this privilege, I think: he puts out an interesting magazine with a good percentage of effective stuff -- and the occasional scoop like Hersh's Afghan thing. (btw Remnick does not seem to run as many embarassing stories as Tina Brown did, you know, the dominatrix stuff, so that's a bonus). Carter's Vanity Fair, well, that's another story, entirely. Awesome images (Leibovitz and all the others, I mean they even convinced Cartier Bresson to shoot a portrait for them last year or 2 yrs ago), but text is much, much weaker: VF is very often embarassing in its money and celebrity fetishism, all those covers about mediocre Hollywood people -- I mean, Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous is already a lame tv show, why make it a magazine (and an expensive one)?
posted by matteo at 11:11 AM on March 21, 2002

details, jane, in-style, and o for general excellence?

rollingstone.com and slate.com for gen. excel. online?

(take those italics any way you like: as grammatically correct title 'notation' OR as conveyance of incredulous tone of voice.)

did i mention that DETAILS was nominated for general excellence?
posted by mlang at 12:53 PM on March 21, 2002

I'm a bit shocked by the nominations for the Hersh pieces in the NEW YORKER, as many of his assertions have been straightforwardly denied, and those denials not refuted in any convincing manner, by a wide variety of defense officialdom.
posted by MattD at 3:05 PM on March 21, 2002

Mlang: gotta agree with you on the "Details" thing. I don't think it's as good as it used to be.

BTW, In his book, "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" Toby Young says that "Details" is for straight men who like to look at pictures of naked men, but don't know why.
posted by ColdChef at 5:54 PM on March 21, 2002

« Older A new temple for new technology   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments