Michael Kinsley, don’t be hating on Newsweek
Michael Kinsley issues a blistering takedown of the newly redesigned Newsweek on TNR today. He writes:
Having recently been dumped by Time, I naturally had great hopes for this week’s much-anticipated makeover of Newsweek. Both surviving newsmags (US News is said to exist still in some form, but no one I know has seen it lately) are in an Internet panic like that affecting newspapers. Newsweek has always been a bit faster on its feet. But judging from its first issue, the new Newsweek is not going to be the instrument of my revenge, alas.
Kinsley is one of those celebrity writers that we workaday staff writers at TIME groused freely about. Here we were, toiling away on 100-line assignments about safety in bottled water or the new SATs, and Kinsley would come sailing in with an 800-word essay that would hog the highly visible back page — with a mug shot, no less. The thing is, he was good. He was damn good. You read his stuff and think, alright, alright — so maybe he deserves that six-figure contract.
I’m surprised TIME booted him. Kinsley himself was part of TIME’s own redesign in 2007. I’m also surprised he didn’t note in his TNR piece that Newsweek’s redesign looks an awful lot like TIME’s — in particular, its clump of big-name columnists, the only part of the new design that Kinsley praises:
Next comes a section called “The Take,” apparently a ghetto for Newsweek’s columnists, who used to be sprinkled through the magazine. Reading six columnists right in a row might ordinarily be heavy slogging. But in this case the force and originality of their arguments and the beauty of their prose overwhelm any qualms. In fact, this magnificent section goes a long way toward justifying the entire misbegotten project. And I don’t just say that because three of the six columnists are former colleagues of mine here at The New Republic. Or perhaps I do say it for that reason. Or is it the full-page photo of Fareed Zakaria in a white bikini that has numbed my critical faculties?
In the long, tortured run-up to TIME’s redesign, I remember being asked — along with all my workaday writer colleagues — whose byline we’d most like to see in the new magazine. “Mine,” I said.
Ha, ha, laughed the editor. No, really.
“No, really,” I said.
What he meant was what good writer. The top editors’ idea of those writers turned out to include William Kristol (to counter the critics who dare call us unbalanced), Peter Beinart (who writes about guy stuff like history and war), Joel Stein (to capture the handful of readers under age 50), Joe Klein (the only one currently on staff) — and, of course, Kinsley. Later, after somebody finally noticed the lack of even one non-white non-male, they added Samantha Power (who faded away once she called Hillary Clinton a “monster”).
Kinsley’s analysis of the Newsweek redesign is spirited, dishy, well-argued — in other words, classic Kinsley. Which is why he’ll always have a gig at the news magazines, so long as they exist and so long as his peers run them. What he didn’t get into was how redesigns like this one affect the non-famous staff. It means fewer opportunities for features. It means conforming to yet another confounding new blueprint. It means learning how and what to pitch, forging new relationships with different editors, figuring it all out all over again usually with not nearly enough of a guideline. These aren’t necessarily bad things. But for staff writers, magazine redesigns typically mean less room to write, fewer chances to break out — a smaller shot at becoming the next Michael Kinsley.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Lisa,
I got to your page from a link in Politico. That’s great. The newsweeklies may squeeze out smart voices like yours, but True/Slant has a place for so many more.
I used to work at Newsweek in the early 80’s. I have to say, this entire Newsweek “remake” makes me laugh. Why? Because I attended a Newsweek offsite meeting back then in Puerto Rico (when newsweeklies were fat and happy). Something like the Newsweek you see today was discussed back then.
So, 25 years later we’re looking at a 25-year-old idea.
I’ll let others judge what that says about the magazine’s future.
Lewis, one anecdote from my previous job at Time Inc., as staff writer at Money magazine: a few months after I was hired, they fired the editor and brought in a new, young guy for a total redesign. After a few years, they decided the “new” Money didn’t work. They ousted that guy and brought in a guy who was a protege of the *first* guy. After a few years, they decided the “old” Money didn’t work. They ousted that editor and brought in a guy who was a protege of the *second* guy. And so it goes.
In response to another comment. See in context »Here’s the problem with most magazine redesigns: they are little more then fresh coats of paint that cover sins. Underlying structural or even bigger issues are rarely addressed.
In response to another comment. See in context »And I from Romenesko. And that’s why I feel sort of trapped in a feedback loop about all of this. Is there any reaching anyone who isn’t in media regarding the state of media? Any reaching through the fourth wall of the kabuki we’re engaged in when it comes to the media’s increasing irrelevance in the national conversation? At worst Kinsley makes the new Newsweek sound out of touch, but at best, it sounds like a playpen for his favorite columnists. His criticism of Meacham’s Obama article rings true only because one of my complaints re:Newsweek and Time was the 8th grade reading level they insist on editing to. Who’s kidding who here? None of this is going to be fixed until one of two things happen: A print news magazine finds a way to be relevant on a broad scale again, or, it admits that the conversation it wants to be a part of is taking place among a smaller subset of people who insist on a higher quality product, a la the vaunted Economist comparison. Short of those outcomes, Kinsley and D’Vorkin are basically right in that this is all so much shuffling of deck chairs.
Paul, you raise interesting points. The media echo chamber is quite intense. Frankly, I do try hard not to be part of it, but on rare instances I can’t resist. Since I did work at Newsweek, this was one of those times. I do think what we’re seeing here is the classic creator vs. caretaker syndrome. Henry Luce, Bill Paley, Ted Turner… they were all creators. Just look at the fabulous news organizations they built. They were innovative, bold, risk taking. Can that be said of the managements that followed them. Be it finance, or consumer goods or manufacturing, or media… it’s those who start from the ground up who will truly try new things. Some caretakers are trying. They are the ones who bet on those working outside the system. It’s the best and worst of capitalism.
In response to another comment. See in context »Lewis, those of us who’ve toiled inside the walls also know — as much as we bitch, the leaders aren’t entirely to blame for clinging to the caretaking role. They’re handpicked by the executives who have a vested interest in the status quo, after all. I wager that no one, and I mean no one, can wander in to TIME or Newsweek and do a complete, revolutionary makeover. There are too many cooks in the kitchen, and even the top editor doesn’t have the power to overrule them all.
In response to another comment. See in context »