Posted on 07/28/2005 12:54:02 PM PDT by MNJohnnie
I cancelled my subscription after the Koran fiasco.
Thank you very much.
I dropped my subscription about 12 years ago. Since I had been a subscriber for almost 20 years, they called me several times to ask why.
I was honest, I told them in detail, citing comments from the last issue I'd received.
I don't remember exactly what it was that was the straw at the time, but I told them that they were biased and weren't covering some current Xlinton scandal.
It's taken a long time for some of the rest of the country to catch up.
Yes, we shouldn't cry too loudly...but mockery, that's another thing entirely.
Ahem...HA! HA!
You're right, it suits just nicely. Excellent.
(I would give it all away for just a little bit more.)
Sounds like a really shitty sitcom on the Wifetime Channel.
About four pounds.
"lack of spending in the automotive sectors..."
Can somebody please tell those jerks trying to sell the Tribeca?
I've only heard "Dust in the Wind" about a thousand times more than I did when it was number one.
It's getting real old. Really, really old.
"Maybe Eleanor and Helen Thomas can share a one bedroom apartment in D.C..."
But Eleanor would be alone in about 3 years when Cheney announces he is running for President and Helen Thomas makes good on her threat to kill herself :)
The liberal media exists on income from ads placed by big businesses, so to the liberal media it makes perfect sense to trash big business. And is then victimized by big businesses when they stop placing ads and providing income.
Typical liberal solution. Ad revenue is down, so we print less magazines. And probably raise the ad rates and the cover price. Maybe if they didn't print any magazines at all the problem would go away. My first step would be to fire jonathan alter and eleanor rodham-clift.
I got a free subscription to Time for Xmas.
I am always amazed how they interject bias into their stuff.
But if you want to see the truly hilarious, read a copy of BusinessWeek. That is such a behind-the-times leftist rag I cannot imagine what the point is to subscribing. It'd be like buying Das Kapital to figure out what you should do with your money.
8^)
From your source: http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/print/
Meredith's earnings soared 23 percent for its fiscal year 2005 to $128 million, Mediaweek reports. Ad revenue across its magazines - including Better Homes and Gardens, Ladies' Home Journal, Midwest Living, and American Baby - grew eight percent, to $253 million, in the fourth quarter, boosted by an uptick across food, cosmetic and automotive categories (as I noted in post #40 stats). Ad revenue for the year grew four percent, to $737 million
The purpose of "news" magazines is to provide insight into the weeks events that the average reader cannot easily get and writing it in a thoughtful and current manner.
Newsweek is a propaganda sheet, so it fails on "thoughtful' and "current". There is no News this week in Newsweek!
(I know, a play on Pravda and Izvestia.)
I have on occasion looked at BusinessWeek (invariably these were occasions on which I had no choice; either look at BW or be bored to death). I agree, BW is a hoot. It seems to be a business magazine for people who don't believe in business, or capitalism.
According to Google, it is published by McGraw-Hill.
With regard to Newsweek/Time, each seems to have as their mission to load as much political bias as possible into every single article. That this is a turnoff to many millions of potential readers matters not a whit; not to their editorial staff, and not to their publishers (who one would think would have some interest in the bottom line). Apparently, if this approach causes them to steadily shrink in size and revenue, so be it. They are either going to be in business to push the leftist cause, or they are going to cease to exist. They cannot, and will not, change.
It is also possible (as I have stated in another thread here) that they cannot go out of business. That is, that they serve the interests and agendas of much bigger forces than themselves, and that their bottom lines will be propped up by those interests even if their readership shrinks to a tiny corps of influential leftists in New York, Washington, and a few other urban areas and university towns.
I know this theory sounds crazy, but, really, is it any crazier than the way they flog their philosophy even in one-paragraph fluff stories about the latest Hollywood bimbo or summer beach-reading selection?
(steely)
Yep, that's it in a nutshell. It's like Cat Fancier Magazine...if it were written by people who hate cats. Or The New Yorker, as written by a secessionist redneck Southerner.
"It is also possible (as I have stated in another thread here) that they cannot go out of business. That is, that they serve the interests and agendas of much bigger forces than themselves, and that their bottom lines will be propped up by those interests even if their readership shrinks to a tiny corps of influential leftists in New York, Washington, and a few other urban areas and university towns. I know this theory sounds crazy, but, really, is it any crazier than the way they flog their philosophy even in one-paragraph fluff stories about the latest Hollywood bimbo or summer beach-reading selection?"
Far be it from me to call your theory crazy. I'm still trying to figure out how Whoopi Goldberg ever became a household name. There has to be some sort of a conspiracy involved there.
Judging from the frequency at which the periodical is presently publishing, I'd say 21 days.
Touche.
BTW, do you remember Whoopi's origins?
It was in, maybe, 1982 or '83. During the height of the Reagan-era media-concocted pseudoscandal phenomenon called "homelessness." Whoopi was supposed to have been a homeless person (just one of many millions of able-bodied Americans of sound mind made homeless by the greed of the Reagan regime) who was doing street-corner theater in NYC. She was "discovered" by some Broadway mogul who set her up with a one-woman show that was, actually, in some ways, pretty good. Sort of a black female Robin Williams type thing.
Of course it was heavily laced with political polemics, railing against Republicans and Reagan. But she actually had some talent (although not as much as Williams and, truthfully, not as much as her level of adulation would justify). I believe she was on the cover of at least one of the news weeklies, and maybe both Time and Newsweek (although I don't think she matched Bruce Springsteen's feat of getting on both T and NW's covers in the same week back in 1974).
Anyway, I've since heard (can't remember where) that the entire "Whoopi Goldberg was is a homeless person who is just being herself on stage" is a crock, a myth made up by the show-biz promotion machine.
She does have a talent for networking and behind-the-scenes string pulling, though.
(steely)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.