Requiem for Newsweek
In a blog posting last June, I wrote that due to its incomprehensible new business strategy of deliberately positioning itself as the laughingstock of American journalism, Newsweek would be out of business in eighteen months. The end has come sooner than I had predicted. As it continues to lose money, the Washington Post, the owner of Newsweek, has decided to put the once venerable newsweekly up for sale.
Although it is tempting for conservatives to engage in Schadenfreude and blame Newsweek’s demise on its inexorable lurch leftward, its decline is principally due to the rise and primacy of the internet. Many other newsweeklies in particular and long-established magazines in general have met the same fate. Newsweek’s 20th century business strategy was one that could not succeed in a fragmented 21st century media environment. Newsweek was a horse and buggy business model in an automobile world. In an age of Twitter, news aggregator sites and a plethora of commentary and opinion freely available on the internet, Newsweek’s business strategy was doomed from the start.
But one would be hard pressed to challenge the thesis that the hard-left shift (We are all Socialists now) of the magazine surely didn’t help it capture many new readers or retain existing ones. Readers on the left had The New Republic or Slate. Those gratified by journalistic obsequiousness and cheer leading for Obama could receive the same bill-of-fare by tuning into MSNBC. In terms of positioning, where did this leave Newsweek? It became an opinion journal without a home and without a core demand for its outdated product.
In hindsight, the inexplicable idea championed by editor Jon Meacham of cutting subscribers in half with the expectation of generating more revenue from advertisers was a recipe for disaster. Old subscribers left, never to return, and the cultivation and securing of a more refined audience never materialized. Meacham seemed utterly detached from the shortcomings of his new business model and the increasingly dogmatic, one-dimensionality of its commentary and reporting.
The ubiquitous presence of many of Newsweek columnists as regulars on the MSNBC talk show circuit made a mockery of Meacham’s intellectual pretensions of revamping the weekly into a “thought leader” along the lines of the Economist or The New Republic. The association with MSNBC simply further cheapened and debased its brand. In its quest for a more upscale readership, where did Meacham think Newsweek would go? Both the Economist and The New Republic are long-established journals with good reputations and loyal audiences. Meacham failed to differentiate his product, and instead provided a newsweekly that all but mirrored the viewpoint expressed by MSNBC.
Evan Thomas’ now infamous claim that Obama is a “sort of God”, is indicative of the fact that Newsweek’s unabashed swooning for Obama eventually morphed into farce. At times, it was difficult to discern if the magazine was anything other that a journalistic organ of Obama worship. Howard Kurtz notes, that he, “lost track of the number of Barack and Michelle covers.” In short, instead of becoming more exclusive, the new “thought leader” degenerated into silliness. On occasion, some of its content was nothing more than campaign advertisements for Obama masquerading as news articles.
Although it has a long and distinguished history, in the end, Newsweek is destined to suffer the same fate as liberal talk radio: both are products without a viable market.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Howard Kurtz notes, that he, “lost track of the number of Barack and Michelle covers.”
Why? Is he missing a hand?
Sure sounds like Schadenfreude, John…
Matthew,
Given the fact that left-leaning Newsweek has been bleeding red ink for over a year, I thought I exhibited remarkable restraint in my conservative lust for Schadenfreude in light of Newsweek’s misfortunes. The more important question is: do you think Newsweek, as currently constituted, is a viable business enterprise?
In response to another comment. See in context »You are sort of the Alan Colmes of this site. Clearly a bone thrown to those who might complain that this site is too left leaning or caters to liberals. Whatever.
In continuing with the analogy, like Colmes your thoughts seem to be laughably simplistic and easily countered.
To summarize, you predicted the demise of Newsweek 18 months ago. While it does not look good for Newsweek, attempting to sell the magazine is not its demise.
You blame the magazine’s failings on: its “lurch leftward”, the internet, its business strategy, its editor Jon Meacham, MSNBC, and most absurd of all, the amount of articles and covers dedicated to Barack Obama.
Which is it?
How about picking one and defending that thought by providing substantive arguments and data? Do you really expect me to believe that Newsweek is failing because it has put Barack Obama on the cover numerous times? This kind of simplistic thinking may work for you, but if you expect me to take anything you say seriously you’ll have to do a little better.
Maybe Newsmax is looking for a new contributor. You’ll fit right in there.
How about looking at Newsweek’s bottom line since its new business strategy was implemented? Who is going to pay anything more than liquidation value for an enterprise that has been bleeding red ink for over a year? Do you think you can help “right” (no pun intended) the sinking ship with more of the same all Obama all the time content. Or are you prepared to argue that Newsweek’s reporting on Obama has been objective?
In response to another comment. See in context »Objectivity is unfortunately dead in this nation. If a magazine or any other news source were to be completely objective these days, it would be immediately branded as propaganda by ideologues on both sides of the aisle.
Conservatives, such as yourself, view anything not bowing to their strictly subjective ideology as lies anyway, so if Newsweek were anywhere left of Fox News, you’d still be here critisizing it anyway.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate Obama as much as most conservatives, but that’s just because I am consistant in my worldview. I hate Bush’s wasteful wars, invasions of privacy, and utter capitulation to corrupt business interests even when they are being sold by a faux-Progressive.
In response to another comment. See in context »You seem to think that I am arguing with you that Newsweek is going to be fine. I’m not. I agree that the magazine is probably doomed. However, you point out in your posting that you predicted its demise 18 months ago. That has not happened. Trying to sell the magazine does not prove that it is a goner.
My attempt was to call you out on your lazy thinking, poor reasoning and blaming typical right wing targets for Newsweek’s demise. The liberal media. Barack Obabma. I’m sure if you had more time you could figure out how to blame immigrants and homosexuals for Newsweek’s decline.
I’m certainly not prepared to argue with you about Newsweek’s objectivity with regards to Barack Obama.
I don’t care.
Is there really any way to measure objectivity when it comes to journalism? News articles are written by people. People who have thoughts, opinions, desires and agendas. You say that Newsweek has gotten more liberal. I have many friends and family members who swear that Newsweek has gotten more conservative. Trying to argue about something like this is like arguing over what a dream means, or what shape a cloud takes. It’s pointless.
I’m asking you to back up your assertions with data and figures. If you want me to respect your opinion, try to prove to me that you are correct. I’ll read it and consider it.
In response to another comment. See in context »If there’s one thing Obama’s stunning victory taught us, it’s that NO ONE in this nation has left leaning sentiments, and no one cares for our President.
It may have been stupid to appeal to the majority of Americans with moderate or Democratic leanings, but that would be only because the only people who still read print jounalism are those folks who are too old and/or stupid to figure out how to use the interwebs, or those too poor to try to cram a computer into their single-wide: AKA Republicans. A left-wing print magazine makes about as much business sense as a right-wing blog these days.
Oh, I enjoy right-wing commentary so much more since I started interpreting it as farce.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by cf bateman. cf bateman said: RT @trueslant Requiem for Newsweek – John Kinsellagh – Right Angle – True/Slant http://bit.ly/a4dDko [...]
Boy, you right-wingers never miss a chance to demonstrate your ignorance by seeking an opportunity to whack Obama. Put this up there with Heckuvajob Brownie’s assertion on Fox that the administration’s lack of response–itself a myth–was a conspiracy so it could halt offshore drilling. Any media observer who’s been half-awake the last five years knows two things: 1) The Internet is killing weekly print publications, and 2) Obama sells magazines. (He’s been on the cover of everything from Rolling Stone to Men’s Vogue–why not blame the former’s downsizing or the latter’s folding on Obama too?) So it would make sense that a weekly magazine, in its desperation, would put a popular figure on its cover frequently. Any other proposed explanation is desperation to tar the president, or stupidity, or both.
Hmmm…. ignorance, eh? that point which you target was clearly an after thought in this article, and appears you’ve missed it. Typical of your ilk though i suppose, you know, to overlook general points. Did you not see the authors statement that Newsweeks “decline is principally due to the rise and primacy of the internet.”
To your silly point, having obama on the cover 56 times doesn’t represnt an attempt to sell a magazine; it represents a particular ideology. good riddance!
Look, Obama has been successful in implementing most of his crappy agenda, which you probably applaud. Unfortunately for us, the numbers aren’t there, i.e. money, and he is laying two massive future shit storms with the explosion (with emphasis) of federal debt and inefficient government micromanagement of the economy which will ultimately leave the USA looking like Greece, eventually.
In response to another comment. See in context »Obama has to be the biggest bust since Jamarcus Russell.
Somewhere in the halls of one of the amazingly intellectual right wing think tanks there is the office of BEO. That being the Blame Everything on Obama bureau which was formally the BOC when Clinton was in office and beyond.
Now this office is tiny compared to the office of IBF (It’s Bush’s Fault) at MoveOn.org. but they do try hard.
You must get their newsletter.
However you failed to mention that Obama also caused the demise of National Geographic Adventure Magazine, by putting Afghanistan off the tourist track; Metropolitan Home because he hasn’t redecorated the oval office; Gourmet, by making those hamburger runs with Brian Williams; Southern Accents Magazine, because he doesn’t have one; Home and Country Home magazines because his mortgage bailout failed; the list goes on and on…but one magazine failure isn’t his fault, Playgirl, we’ll lay that one on Scott Brown.
Nice bit of satire- but it might be wasted on someone who thinks that Slate and The New Republic are left-wing publications.
In response to another comment. See in context »Turn NEWSWEEK into a photo-only newsweekly, in the same vein as LIFE. That’ll give it a new lease on “life” (sorry) and possibly a new niche publication. There is nothing like it currently on the newsstands!
If Newsweek is closing because of their love affair with Obama then there will be several additional newspapers, publications and websites that will be closing eventually. Sadly, it’s only recently that SOME mainstream media outlets are willing to be mildly critical of Obama. Critical = willing to challenge him, question him, etc.