Newsweak: Shrinking Mag to Include a 'Bluffer's Guide'

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

NewsweekMagPick0209.jpgNewsweek Magazine, referred to frequently by yours truly as "Newsweak," is deliberately shrinking its circulation base by half, in effect giving up on its formerly mass audience, and going through a top-to-bottom redesign.

As is the case with its fellow declining competitor Time, it never occurs to these people that their legacy of bias, double standards, and inexplicable sloppiness have chased away so many readers that whatever business model they adopt won't work without an accompanying fundamental philosophical shift towards fairness, balance, and due diligence that is nowhere on the horizon. In Newsweak's case, all you need to remember is the "Quran flush" debacle of 2005 and Drudge's trumping Michael Isikoff on Monica Lewinsky in 1998 (with plenty of other examples in between and ever since, as you can see by typing "newsweek" at the Media Research Center's search page).

Here are excerpts from a New York Times puff piece on the magazine's plans (the picture at the top right is from that story), including a bizarre new "feature" straight from the "Can't Make This Stuff Up" Department (in bold at the end):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Newsweek Plans Makeover to Fit a Smaller Audience

Newsweek is about to begin a major change in its identity, with a new design, a much smaller and, it hopes, more affluent readership, and some shifts in content. The venerable newsweekly’s ingrained role of obligatory coverage of the week’s big events will be abandoned once and for all, executives say.

“There’s a phrase in the culture, ‘we need to take note of,’ ‘we need to weigh in on,’ ” said Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham. “That’s going away. If we don’t have something original to say, we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable.”

Newsweek loses money, and the consensus within its parent, the Washington Post Company, and among industry analysts, is that it has to try something big. The magazine is betting that the answer lies in changing both itself and its audience, and getting the audience to pay more.

..... Thirteen months ago, Newsweek lowered its rate base, the circulation promised to advertisers, to 2.6 million from 3.1 million, and Mr. Ascheim said that would drop to 1.9 million in July, and to 1.5 million next January.

..... Editorially, Newsweek’s plan calls for moving in the direction it was already headed — toward not just analysis and commentary, but an opinionated, prescriptive or offbeat take on events.

The current cover article argues that America’s involvement in Afghanistan parallels the Vietnam War, and a companion piece offers a plan for handling that country. Newsweek also plans to lean even more heavily on the appeal of big-name writers like Christopher Hitchens, Fareed Zakaria and George Will.

Starting in May, articles will be reorganized under four broad, new sections — one each for short takes, columnists and commentary, long reporting pieces like the cover articles, and culture — each with less compulsion to touch on the week’s biggest events. A new graphic feature on the last page, “The Bluffer’s Guide,” will tell readers how to sound as if they are knowledgeable on a current topic, whether they are or not.

Newsweak's alleged journalists should have no trouble putting out "The Bluffer's Guide." They've had years of practice. I would suggest that those who want to build a knowledge base beyond bluffing consider looking elsewhere.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

→ Washington Style Mag

I thing there's a great opportunity for Newsweak following the trendsetting First couple as they remake America's Fashion sense.

Burlap & Berkehs  ?

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Newsweak is the same as suicide bombers

They are willing to self destruct (in business) for the sake of a higher calling. It is called Liberalism and Socialism.

I must commend them for not being interested in only money, but actually having ideals they are willing to die for!

Rush calls them drive-byes , I call them Business (or journalistic) suicide bombers.

So,

Newsweak lost, or will lose over 50% of it's readership on purpose?  Right, and Catie Couric is an objective, truthful journalist and there is no bias in the Lame Stream Media.  Got it..

Newweak

Cutting circulation  is probably the most honest move they've made. They've only played to 50% of the country anyway.

 If it wasn't for the dentist's office, I'd never see that magazine anyway.

Subscriber

I am a subscriber....do you think they will let me cut my bill in half as well?

 

Increase

No, actually, they made it clear in the NYT article that they are going to be serving you "Newsweak Light" at a GREATER cost to you, their loyal reader.  Like, how stupid do they think you are???

I found myself laughing at so many of the ideas expressed:  They think their core readers: smart, affluent, intellectual people, are really looking for a thinner, glossier, more expensive version of the same crap they've been handed for years.  Oh, and they're going to abandon all pretense of being unbiased journalists - like we hadn't already figured THAT out.

What they won't admit is that they absolutely can't compete with the INTERNET and the 24/7 cable news. All Newsweak has to offer is warmed over leftover news, served with a healthy dollop of left-wing bias.

There really was ....

.... no end the humor and self-delusion in the NYT article.

SC, Charge more for less

SC, Charge more for less and try to balance it on the backs of the affluent.  I wonder who's policies they're embracing here?  I used to read both Newsweek and Time, until the distortion and outright BS frustrated me and I dropped both.  I can go over to my mother-in-law's house and read them if I wish, which I don't.  While I'm there, I can turn on her basic cable and watch the news on ABC, NBC, or CBS.  She thinks everything is wonderful and when I tell her the stimulus bill is loaded with pork for abortion clinics and money for people who have never paid taxes, she doesn't believe it.  She hasn't heard that over half the money is going down a liberal rathole, the same one that started this mess in the first place.  Do you think her outlook has anything to do with where she gets her news?  Jbeee, it is good to know the enemy and some might say I have my head in the sand, but I just can't stand to subsidizes that garbage. 

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

It is difficult to understate the problem ....

.... you just identified.

IMO, millions of seniors, after years of hard work and minimal exposure to what you just described (and getting used to the dependency of Social Security), go wobbly on sensible conservative values (I know, that's redundant) in retirement. I've seen it many times.

They also offer

Lame two page advertisements on miracle drugs that may cause: diarrhea, loss of mind, temporary insanity, glossolalia, inflamed hemmorhoids, dim vision, lack of sense, feelings of suicide, Bush Derangement Syndrome, and so on.

What...that is what Newsweek already delivers.

this makes me think of

this makes me think of Michael Scott on The Office, whenever he is defeated, he works it enough to convince himself it was by his own decision, and then says it enough that everyone else around him eventually lets him think it

Ever watch the Dragon's Den?

It's where people have to pitch their business ideas to investors in hopes of getting capital infusion.  If you were one of the panelists, would you buy their new business strategy?  I would throw them out on their ear.  For example, if they're going for the affluent, what is it about their scheme that will snare this highly prized market?   The bluff page?  So people will think the reader is more of an a$$hole than people already think they are?  Goodbye Newsweak.  And No, we are not all Socialists now. 

Actually, what they're

Actually, what they're doing makes a lot of sense. I used to subscribe to Newsweak but let my subscription lapse as I agreed with very little the magazine had to say. I tried Time with the same results. I finally started taking magazines like the Weekly Standard, National Review, and American Spectator where I can read views more consistent to mine.

The difference between Newsweak and National Review/Weekly Standard/AmericanSpectator is that the latter advertise themselves as conservative where the former tries to pass itself off as middle of the road, which it isn't. If you convince yourself that you're fair and unbiased, then you would naturally over estimate your rate base. 

Conservative magazines know that they're conservative and plan their rate base accordingly. Newsweak is finally admitting that they are little more than a liberal rag and can only expect a proportionate rate base.

I look for Newsweak to tip even further left, MSNBC left, and go for what Rush Limbaugh calls, "The Kook Left Fringe."

I always wondered...

How to Thomas and Meacham have time to write giant history books if they are editing a magazine? Who was minding the store? I began to falter when they ran articles on religion almost every week...Then the Messiah appeared and I called for the check. And they DO pay you back.

"Newsweek Magazine...is

"Newsweek Magazine...is deliberately shrinking its circulation base by half"

Isn't this strategy from the "you can't fire me because I quit" school of redesign?  

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

Bluffer's Guide

So, basically this magazine will become the "Little Red Book" for party affiliates of the Democrat Party?

It justs smacks of it!

How many of these torched fruitbats have you had dialogue with, where they are quoting some obscure website (that is most likely non-existant) or some media whore (as if they actually have a reel to reel in their head)? I hope this Bluffers Guide also recommends facial expressions, intonations, and finger/hand gesturing poses as well, to add even more insult to injury.

I guess that since they are moving to an ever shrinking base, that means they are only mailing it to members of the MoveOn, HuffPo, etc?

Otherwise, I would have to peruse through this guide every week, in order to be prepared to shell down any of these Fraud Failures the minute they open their maws.

You just can not make this kind of crap up anymore.

Truth is stranger than fiction!

Fail, Please

It's obvious that both Time and Newsweak are headed the direction of US News & World Report, which means a significant downsizing and a web-only presence financed by ads. Either that or a financial bailout which would mean control by Rahm Emanuel and his Chicago gang. Check the fine print in that stinker of a 455 page bill!

Newsweak can't have it both ways.

a much smaller and, it hopes, more affluent readership,

Affluent?  Are they intentionally trying to cater to the blue state plutocrats?  Or maybe they are trying to get a "readership" of the current crop of under-educated dumbasses who are being churned out of our universities?

My solution is simple.  Use words with one syllable, add lots and lots of pictures, and a set of crayons.

For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me.  As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.

Ian Anderson "Wind up"

 

 

Good for Newsweek!! They

Good for Newsweek!!

They have finally decided to drop the mask that they were writing for all Americans in favor of just admitting they are writing for the Manhattan crowd.  --- Kudos to you!!