Celebrating Ignorance: Newsweek's Makeover

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Celebrating Ignorance: Newsweek's Makeover

Postby AlicetheKurious » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:39 am

Newsweek Plans Makeover to Fit a Smaller Audience
Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times

Newsweek is planning a redesign and some shifts in content to fashion an opinionated take on events, aimed at a much smaller, and wealthier, readership.

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: February 8, 2009

When US Airways Flight 1549 glided safely onto the Hudson River last month, Newsweek did what news organizations have done for more than a century — it sent reporters and photographers to the scene.

Considerable effort yielded a modest article on Newsweek’s Web site, and nothing in the printed magazine.

If a similar episode happens six months from now, editors say, Newsweek probably will not even bother.

Newsweek is about to begin a major change in its identity, with a new design, a much smaller and, it hopes, more affluent readership, and some shifts in content. The venerable newsweekly’s ingrained role of obligatory coverage of the week’s big events will be abandoned once and for all, executives say.

“There’s a phrase in the culture, ‘we need to take note of,’ ‘we need to weigh in on,’ ” said Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham. “That’s going away. If we don’t have something original to say, we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable.”

Newsweek loses money, and the consensus within its parent, the Washington Post Company, and among industry analysts, is that it has to try something big. The magazine is betting that the answer lies in changing both itself and its audience, and getting the audience to pay more.

A deep-rooted part of the newsweekly culture has been to serve a mass audience, but that market has been shrinking, and new subscribers come at a high price in call centers, advertising and deeply discounted subscriptions.

“Mass for us is a business that doesn’t work,” said Tom Ascheim, Newsweek’s chief executive. “Wish it did, but it doesn’t. We did it for a long time, successfully, but we can’t anymore.”

Thirteen months ago, Newsweek lowered its rate base, the circulation promised to advertisers, to 2.6 million from 3.1 million, and Mr. Ascheim said that would drop to 1.9 million in July, and to 1.5 million next January.

He says the magazine has a core of 1.2 million subscribers who are its best-educated, most avid consumers of news, and who have higher incomes than the average reader.

“We would like to build our business around these people and grow that group slightly,” he said. “These are our best customers. They are our best renewers, and they pay the most.”

In the first half of 2008, the average Newsweek subscriber paid less than $25 a year, or 47 cents for each copy — less than one-tenth the $4.95 newsstand price. Newsweek wants to raise that average to $50 a year, Mr. Ascheim said, adding, “If you can’t get people to pay for what they love, we’re all out of business.”

From their invention, newsweeklies have been under assault by quicker media, forcing them to ease away from the “what,” toward the “how” and “why,” and more recently, to “here’s what to do about it.” For decades, the magazines evolved quickly enough to keep huge readership and healthy profits.

But in the last couple of years, circulation and advertising have plunged, and the weeklies have cut news staffs. Time magazine, the nation’s first and largest newsweekly, remains profitable, though its sales are down, too, but Newsweek is struggling and U.S. News & World Report has become a monthly.

Editorially, Newsweek’s plan calls for moving in the direction it was already headed — toward not just analysis and commentary, but an opinionated, prescriptive or offbeat take on events.

The current cover article argues that America’s involvement in Afghanistan parallels the Vietnam War, and a companion piece offers a plan for handling that country. Newsweek also plans to lean even more heavily on the appeal of big-name writers like Christopher Hitchens, Fareed Zakaria and George Will.

Starting in May, articles will be reorganized under four broad, new sections — one each for short takes, columnists and commentary, long reporting pieces like the cover articles, and culture — each with less compulsion to touch on the week’s biggest events. A new graphic feature on the last page, “The Bluffer’s Guide,” will tell readers how to sound as if they are knowledgeable on a current topic, whether they are or not. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/busin ... sweek.html
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Code Unknown » Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:00 pm

Boring.
Code Unknown
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:54 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:09 pm

aimed at a much smaller, and wealthier, readership.


Of course. Who else can afford to spend money on utterly useless crap?
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:11 pm

sunny wrote:aimed at a much smaller, and wealthier, readership.

Of course. Who else can afford to spend money on utterly useless crap?


Except that this is a predictable PR claim aimed at the advertisers. The facts in this story are painfully clear: readership is declining and the company feels forced to downsize on the expense of actual reporting. So they're turning the magazine into a kind of printed blog and putting a positive spin on it. From the sound of it, the "makeover" means yet another format-heavy small-byte format with sexy columnists blathering in the mode of politico.com.

Newsweek has always been a very slight cut above middlebrow, Time a slight cut below. Both are like weekly updates of the Soviet Encyclopedia. Most of the "smaller and wealthier readership" who want useful info and deeper research and analysis never really belonged to either, and they won't be coming now. Among the general-interest publications, the rich will continue to read NYT/WP/WSJ, The Economist, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs... even Harper's, or Vanity Fair, Esquire and the like.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:12 pm

Code Unknown wrote:Boring.


Quite.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby H_C_E » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:44 pm

*crickets*
Abdul, wax the beach with postal regret portions. Nevermind the o-ring leader he got not the cheese duster from the dachshund dimension or even pillow frighteners.
H_C_E
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Loud Pants
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Celebrating MANIPULATION: Newsweek's Makeover

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:37 pm

Newsweek Plans Makeover to Fit a Smaller Audience
Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times

Newsweek is planning a redesign and some shifts in content to fashion [b]an opinionated take on events, aimed at a much smaller, and wealthier, readership.


By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: February 8, 2009
.....
A new graphic feature on the last page, “The Bluffer’s Guide,” will tell readers how to sound as if they are knowledgeable on a current topic, whether they are or not. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/busin ... sweek.html


This is evolving psyops strategy in the guise of a marketing adjustment.
Same thing, really.

Strategic Culture is streamlining to become more heuristic and less informative.

A key demographic of propaganda is the middle class's upper-management types who set agendas.
They are going to be given CIA talking points instead of articles which might lead to dangerous independent thought.

Related: TV and movies are saturated with spook recruiting and
pre-training of spy-craft is being embedded online to normalize and reinforce manipulation as a cultural survival tool-

http://www.wikihow.com/Fake-Interest-in-Anything

How to Fake Interest in Anything
Faking interest in anything can give you the perpetual upper hand in bland situations or when dealing with boring people...

[edit]Steps
Make sure that you are first able to fake interest before taking it into a real world situation. Try looking at a coffee table or watching MTV for a half hour and making commentary to yourself, maybe a plant or other inanimate object in your home. Such comments could be "Did you see the new Jessica Simpson video? She is so talented!" or "I love the finish on this coffee table. It is very interesting!" If you can accomplish this first step without laughing or becoming ill, please continue...
Master eye contact. Too much will give you up as a weirdo, and too little will show you for the truly uninterested party that you are.
Use your surroundings. A cup of coffee can be used in a great deal of ways to help you with different methods. In the case of eye contact, you can use it to divert your eyes while cooling or drinking the brew. And the "over the rim" method of using your eyes to create a feeling of deceptive interest while actually taking a drink shows that you are concerned, even though you are busy. Truly a noble sacrifice. Just make sure your interactions with your surroundings are like the eye contact...not too much or too little....
Verbalize your interest while staying separated from the conversation. Paying attention to inflection while spacing out is easy. With a little practice you can master this technique easily. You can do a lot with an agreeing sound...not so much an actual word, but just a low to high "ahh" when you believe they are seeking approval. Or a sympathetic high to low "ohh" when they are looking for your agreement when dealing with an unpleasant situation. The key here is to not go very far in one direction or the other. Staying neutral will save you the confusion of explanation, apology, or even worse, being forced to pay attention.
Wrap it up and get out of there...you are faking it for a reason. Now, you have to stay away from the pitfalls, such as looking at your watch or saying "well..." (we all know what that means). Now you can refer to my other article on "How to fake a cell phone call" at the bottom of this page for one example of how to get out of this. Another would be to interact with your settings again. Finish your coffee, retire to the restroom, and come back out on an "emergency call." In this step, you really can get creative. Use your imagination, and please feel free to exercise regard for your subject. We don't hate them...we just genuinely don't care.


[edit]Tips
When dealing with a lover (or ex-lover) assess the situation before diving in too deep...they will catch on eventually, if not already.
Carry small interesting props for your exit strategy...trust me, you already practice fake interest in your day to day life...its time to make it interesting.
Always assume they know you are not interested...it is your job to show them you care, for whatever selfish interest you are trying to fulfill by taking the time to fake in the first place.
If wanting to get out of there fast have your kids start pretending to be tired (if it is late in the day). Do not attempt hungry, as this might get you invited for lunch or dinner.


[edit]Warnings
If you find yourself doing this too often, you may want to reexamine your friends and surroundings.
Immediate family members, especially mothers and fathers will not usually fall for this. Its worth a try though.
Your girlfriend already knows you are usually not interested. Come to terms with it and break up if you really can't make it through another "So today at the mall..." story.
Always . and i cannot stress this enough . ALWAYS amuse yourself first.


[edit]Related wikiHows
How to Cry on the Spot
How to Feign Interest when an Annoying Person Talks to You
How to Tell a Guy You Know He's Lying to You
How to Earn a Girl's Trust Back After Lying
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby IanEye » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:44 pm

This is a marketing adjustment of a psyops strategy in the guise of evolving.
Same thing, really.
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Need to know basis. "No, we don't!"

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:14 pm

Um, yeah. Newsweek is owned by the CIA-Washington Post.

The CIA media has been reducing the amount of information given to the public steadily ever since widespread resistance to the Vietnam War and the end of the conscription draft made this a critical strategy for carrying out permanent economic war.

News rooms were purged of anyone not On the Team.
Investigative journalism became almost extinct after the Pentagon/CIA coup known as Watergate.

Now that some of We the People online know too much, more information must be subtracted from the mainstream media to maintain acceptable levels of Strategic Ignorance.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Elvis » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:15 pm

A little over a year ago, I somehow received a free, quite unsolicited subscription to Newsweek ("Newsweak"). I'd leaf through the issues and rarely saw anything worth my time, and often saw what Jack Riddler nicely characterizes as "utter crap" and of course a lot of opinion-shaping "news."

Finally I just quit opening them when they came, and set them in my apartment house hallway for others to read. Ha!---no one did.

After a year, Newsweek let me know that the free ride was over and they started demanding money---"action required"..."Final Notice!"

And on the newstand?---jeez---a single copy is like $3.00 or more?!
And I see that it'll cost even more now.
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7563
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby waugs » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:55 pm

Walter Isaacson was on Colbert the other night, desperately trying to argue why people should start paying for Newsweek articles online (or maybe he's with Time, not that it makes much difference). He was whining about the internet and how it's hurt their bottom-line. What an idiot. He seemed completely out of touch with the way media works. Go ahead, start charging to read your already-hollow articles--see how fast your readership closes that browser window.
User avatar
waugs
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:53 am

JackRiddler wrote:
sunny wrote:aimed at a much smaller, and wealthier, readership.

Of course. Who else can afford to spend money on utterly useless crap?


Except that this is a predictable PR claim aimed at the advertisers. The facts in this story are painfully clear: readership is declining and the company feels forced to downsize on the expense of actual reporting. So they're turning the magazine into a kind of printed blog and putting a positive spin on it. From the sound of it, the "makeover" means yet another format-heavy small-byte format with sexy columnists blathering in the mode of politico.com.


That was precisely my take on it: they're going to go straight for the "opinion-shaping" while abandoning even the pretense of journalism.

In other words, Newsweek's "new" priority will be to increase the number of opinionated, ignorant people walking around...because we don't have enough of those.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby DoYouEverWonder » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:21 am

waugs wrote:Walter Isaacson was on Colbert the other night, desperately trying to argue why people should start paying for Newsweek articles online (or maybe he's with Time, not that it makes much difference). He was whining about the internet and how it's hurt their bottom-line. What an idiot. He seemed completely out of touch with the way media works. Go ahead, start charging to read your already-hollow articles--see how fast your readership closes that browser window.


He really was pathetic. He was livid that people could read stuff for free! Oh, we can't have that now, can we?

BTW: Last time I checked, I still pay a fair fee for my internet connection. So no, the internet isn't 'free'. Between that and the ads they bombard us with, if these clowns can't make money selling their rags, then they should go the way of the dinosaur.
User avatar
DoYouEverWonder
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:24 am
Location: Within you and without you
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Need to know basis. "No, we don't!"

Postby MinM » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:48 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Um, yeah. Newsweek is owned by the CIA-Washington Post.

The CIA media has been reducing the amount of information given to the public steadily ever since widespread resistance to the Vietnam War and the end of the conscription draft made this a critical strategy for carrying out permanent economic war.

News rooms were purged of anyone not On the Team.
Investigative journalism became almost extinct after the Pentagon/CIA coup known as Watergate.

Now that some of We the People online know too much, more information must be subtracted from the mainstream media to maintain acceptable levels of Strategic Ignorance.


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... opic=18409

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/ ... 8720111118

http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... ek-ad-deal

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/c ... e-newsweek

viewtopic.php?p=346065#p346065
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Celebrating Ignorance: Newsweek's Makeover

Postby 82_28 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:19 am

It's just amazing at how out of touch orgs and subsidiaries of multi-national corporate conglomerates are when it comes to this shit. If what it is is journalism, then fucking journalize. Cut to the motherfucking chase. Do it before anybody else does. Delve into the interesting ass bullshit out there, the rest of us do unless we're trapped at a doctor's office we can't afford the visit to and lo and behold, hey! It's a Newsweek!!!! Holla.

Who gives a single fuck what Newsweek has to say? They could totally make themselves totally current.

Here's my diagnosis. Harper's becomes Newsweek. Harper's is the most level headed, brilliant mainstream mag that has ever existed. Harper's is literally the only magazine I will pay money for or subscribe to, unless I gotta throw down for Gourmet for my broad or some shit. But Harper's is the only magazine I trust to have hard hitting, brilliant, fascinating, emotionally charged, left wing, commonsense writing and coverage.

(I'm sure Hugh will have something to say about Harper's being CIA, but anyways, happy thanksgiving. . .)
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 168 guests