Still, I did not renew, if that tells you anything!
You can check it out yourself. They refer to what other people have written in other magazines and newspapers. They give a pretty good sampling.
More than half the time a liberal gets the last word, but it's not all the time as it is in some other publications.
The magazine was started in Britain and has its US office in NYC. Given the way Britain and New York and the media in general are there are limits to how conservative it could be.
I started my subscription to NatRev while Reagan was governor. I will keep my subscription to The Week.
The articles are very short and all over the map. I learned something today in an article about something else. My alma mater (U.C. Berkeley) has discontinued the 100 year old baseball team to save money. That tid-bit was sandwiched into an article about somebody's daughter taking up LaCrosse.
It's an odd little magazine. If I can find it again tomorrow, I'll make a further assessment.
No question . . . I dumped it, then NewsWeek, then World News and Report (or whateverthehell it is called) because of their anti-family and anti-American articles.
As National Review says, if something isn’t explicitly conservative, it’ll be liberal by default, or evolve that way.
I got a mailing from them a few weeks ago, enclosing a copy. I noticed that they twisted themselves into a pretsel trying to present both sides of the gun issue. But I kept thinking that their heart was not on the side of pro-guns.
I didn’t subscribe.
I read The Week from 2003 to early 2007. I cancelled my subscription because The Week changed. When I read it, it was easily center-right and presented a balance in every article. Even my wife- who hates politics - read it with a relish and really enjoyed it. In the months leading up to the 2006 Congressional elections, I noticed that any story that was in any way pro-conservative became non-existent. By the time the elections were over, the magazine became almost impossible for me to read. So I wrote a formal complaint to the editor, citing articles from years past and demonstrating the complete shift towards a pro-liberal bias. I received back a response telling me that The Week was under the control a completely new editorial staff, and their job was to make sure The Week properly reflected the current political climate and the issues at hand. I hit the roof and cancelled immediately. In years past, Robert Shrum would never have been allowed to write for The Week because his liberal bias was so intense and unchecked, yet he is now one of their principle contributors. If you in any way believe in individual liberty and intellectual honesty - you’re not going to find it there.
I have found the content to be very centered. I do find it interesting to note most of the comments disparaging the magazine were from right. Is there no place for the middle today?
I get it. It’s center-left, but not obnoxious. Observe how they position the pieces they aggregate: start out Libtard, give the conservative view, finish libtard, so the last impression you’re left with (no pun intended) is the libtard. They’re not going to change my mind on anything, and it’s nice to get the full range of views on a topic.
I think it is a well put together magazine, and covers the entire country, not just the coasts.