Beautiful Losers - Salon sinks, Radar rises. Do we really need either of these magazines?

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, February 21, 2003 | RUSS SMITH

[TroutStalker]

Just for a moment, ignore Jacques Chirac's temper tantrums, Dennis Kucinich's ridiculous presidential bid, antiwar protesters who can't locate Iraq on a map, Turkey's economic blackmail of the White House and anything Sen. Ted Kennedy, the moral arbiter of the Democratic Party, has to say in Congress.

[Grampa Dave]

2003 could really be a great year with RIP: Slate, the UN, NATO, ChIRAQ, , Schroder, Soddomite, the mass murdering mullah thugs of Iran and dozens of left wing corporations without Jake Reno to protect them.

[Between the Lines]

"Radar is a smart, opinionated magazine about news, pop culture, style and politics that's geared to a young, urban audience,"

It is geared to an audience that prefers TV and radio over reading. Great idea.

[mg39]

Yes, we need those magazines. We, America, need as many diverse viewpoints as possible. We need conservative voices to question liberal opinions, and vice-versa. We need secular voices to challenge religious voices, and vice-versa. Etc, etc.

If we ever devolve into a situation where only one viewpoint is heard, then we have entered a dangerous and anti-freedom realm like the old Soviet Union, where the party line was the only line, like it or not.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

If we ever devolve into a situation where only one viewpoint is heard, then we have entered a dangerous and anti-freedom realm like the old Soviet Union, where the party line was the only line, like it or not.

Perhaps you haven't noticed but we are emerging from such an era, not devolving into one. The left has held sway for the last fifty years at least. Conservative radio and especially conservative TV news and publications are rather recent in the larger scheme of things.

[battlegearboat]

My nominee for worst magazine ever:

TV Guide