- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
The Nation's Pulse
Killing Time
It isn’t newspapers alone that seem dazed by the challenge of just staying alive amid the ruins left by technological revolution. A less-noticed casualty is the venerable newsmagazine—70 or 80 pages each week of allegedly discerning interpretation and analysis, aimed at the educated, middle- to upper-middle- class reader, serious in his concerns, or mostly so; interested, glancingly at least, in a wide range of current topics; at worst, desirous of passing himself at the clubhouse or the church door as more than your average beer-guzzling know-nothing.
Oh, those days! As you’ll know or intuit, they are no more. U.S. News & World Report, formerly a weekly, is a monthly digital magazine, with “embedded video and audio podcasts.” Newsweek, long owned by the Washington Post, is reportedly contemplating a makeover as a shaper of thought rather than a reporter of events. Time marches on, but…
The “but” is considerable, revealing as much about Americans as about the journalism they commission through the deployment of their money at newsstands and subscription offices. Or elsewhere. The Henry Luce style of magazine writing discourages the personal, but I would fall short of the present mark if I were not to disclose my lost romance with Time. Time, which came into my parents’ household (along with Life) during the ’50s, taught me to read and, in reading, react: punch back, cogitate, or just laugh. The old Time wasn’t junk food. The new Time—for all its red-bordered sense of importance and its profitable standing in the marketplace, is pure Quarter Pounder with cheese and fries. The dumbing down of America is what it represents.
It’s been coming on a while. I can’t quite remember when I quit subscribing to Time. It might have been the mid-’70s; likely earlier, when its sparkle faded altogether. “[O]ur mission at Time,” confesses Time’s present editor, Richard Stengel, “is to help you navigate this new world.” Dammit, sir, it’s a good thing I already know a bit about the world, because the new Time would be content if I just wandered around to my heart’s content.
In today’s journalism market, the newsmagazine isn’t about news. No, no, it’s about views and tastes—of which everybody, apparently, has some. Time in its heyday, under its surviving co-founder Henry Luce, had views aplenty, generally of the centrist Republican sort. It so happened that underlying those views was an appreciation of wisdom and culture, which appreciation is missing almost entirely from the present Time.
The old Time spoke to an audience (according to a 1939 poll) comprising 60 percent businessmen and women and 18.5 percent professional persons—doctors, lawyers, and the like. “Our journalism,” said Luce, “is concerned with the middle and upper-middle class”—a class one might assume was burdened with education, curiosity, and taste.
Ahead lay the late 20th and early 21st centuries, with their peculiar obsessions, such as the equivalency of all knowledge areas, the need to dismiss standards in learning, and, feeding those obsessions, the technological style in news-gathering and presentation: everything fast, everything knowable the minute you want to know it. The old Time, and the other newsmagazines, were framed on the need to know and understand a broad range of events and ideas. What you want to know these days is pretty much up to you, the lonely voyager through oceans of blogs and websites. You pays your money, and you takes your choice.
Newsweek’s reported quest to become an interpretative authority makes sense within the modern context of technology-driven journalism. But technology doesn’t account entirely for the decline of Time. Education does. Culture does.
JUST A MINUTE HERE. What is going on at Time? I checked the March 16 edition. It sure wasn’t the Time of yore: sophisticated, self-confident. This was a Time looking not so much as to inform its reader as to send him away with a friendly squeeze of the arm.
We started in the March 16 edition with “10 Questions.” Go ahead—ask the “Interview Subject of the Day”—on this occasion, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Read a feature story about George W. Bush, “home” at last in Crawford, Texas (despite his pur- chase of a nice ritzy spread 100 miles north in Dallas). Then “Briefing”—odds and ends of knowledge. Then a series of unrelated quotations—“Verbatim.” A little later, a 166-word (I counted) book review. Followed by a six-page feature on the health crisis, a feature on women’s finance guru Suze Orman, a feature called “The Curious Capitalist,” a review of the movie Watchmen (citing the new Time’s citation of that eponymous comic novel as one of the 100 best novels since 1963!). Then the running feature (so I gather) “Nerd World,” by Lev Grossman. Then a closing essay on “Cell-Phone Second Thoughts.”
It works. I guess. The New York Times’s Richard Perez-Pena says, “While U.S. News and Newsweek struggle financially, Time generated a profit of near $50 million in 2008, in part by sharply cutting costs, according to Time Inc. executives….” In part, perhaps mostly, by keeping the product nice and low-grade: a cut above People (founded by Time’s owners) but not too large a cut.
If not itself totally, outright “dumb,” the new Time is an underachiever. Thus, perhaps, the present educational product has rendered our culture. The old Time’s hallmark was authority, stylishly, amusingly rendered; sophisticated to a degree; serious when necessary, and that was most of the time, but withal bright, funny. Not highbrow, not even aspiring to that status, but certainly (the critic Dwight Macdonald’s coinage) middlebrow: at that, high middle, on a par with the classes that made up much of its clientele.
Just for beans, I checked to see what Time had published 50 years earlier than the issue just cited. The cover story—are you sitting down?—was on Paul Tillich, the German-born Protestant theologian then teaching at Harvard, architect of “a towering structure of thought form which currently commands the littoral of theology. The concepts which are his raw materials may be as hard to grasp and hold as a handful of dry sand, but the edifice he has built with them is densely packed and neatly shaped against the erosion of intellectual wind and wave.”
It was the old Time’s way in the old days to use Easter as the occasion for a cover story on theology. For which there was a market. That would be a chunk of my point. There was a market for this material— one that top-drawer writers like Whittaker Chambers, Archibald MacLeish, Stephen Vincent Benét, and James Agee supplied at one time or another. Time was the willing seller to the willing buyer who is presupposed as the driver of commerce. People wanted this stuff, or anyway said they did, in response to Henry Luce’s exhortations.
THE PASSING OF THE OLD TIME, and its replacement by the Time of “Briefing” and “Verbatim” is more cultural reflection than journalistic debasement. The culture doesn’t want that old stuff right now. Particularly it doesn’t want authority, which was Time’s hallmark. Time, in its early days (Luce and Briton Hadden, a pair of Yale graduates, founded it in 1923), advertised itself as a “magazine devoted to Summarizing Progress.” It framed its stories in narrative form, with a delightfully idiosyncratic style that the New Yorker’s Wolcott Gibbs parodied in 1936 as “Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind.” Time, one chronicler writes, “was a magazine of extremely confident young men”—the “arbiter of the great center.”
Comments
Leave a Comment
Robert Rosencrans| 5.5.09 @ 7:28AM
I can't remember the last time I read a magazine. Like you, I once had a subscription to TIME. I also subscribed to many other magazines and also let the subscriptions lapse in the late 80's.
The problem with magazines is that they appeal to a certain mentality now, just as you described.
Very few are informative and the ones for the masses are like literary Oprah readings.
The problems with most agents of the press is that they either do not recognize news stories, or are convinced that the public is dumb, or perhaps many are dumb and this is the best we have to offer in that area.
Steven Burgess| 5.5.09 @ 8:53AM
I stopped buying Time in 1995 when the magazine ran an issue where it examined a typical week during which nearly 450 people were murdered by guns. When I read the facts, half of the deaths were suicides (most of which no doubt were ill with cancer, etc.). Of the other half, 50 percent were domestic in nature. The rest were murders during robberies, home invasions, etc. The whole story was a lie as to the real facts. And they wonder why no one wants to read made up stories.
Son Of Sam| 5.5.09 @ 9:14AM
Newspapers and magazines are losing readers, not because of "the culture", or because the American people are stupid: it's because the so-called "mainstream" press has become so ARROGANT. They shovel out mindless propaganda year after year, stuff so boring and packed with lies that no person with intelligence or honesty can stand it, then they complain that no one reads them anymore because the American people supposedly are "less cultured" or have shorter attention spans, or want "instant gratification/celebrity worship". Then in response to their own bone headed assessment, these "news" magazines dumb down their coverage even more,and make it more slanted and biased. And they wonder why we no longer subscribe? Fer cryin' out loud: if I wanted to be talked down to like I was four year old who'd been caught drawing on the walls with a crayon, I'd watch Obama's speeches on an endless loop.
Come to think of it, is there any difference between the two?
stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos
C. Vail| 5.5.09 @ 9:16AM
Terrific insight and admirable style -- this article, not Time, or at least not the latter day Time.
The author's experience and memories mirror my own. I started reading it as a ten year old in the 1950s (thanks, Dad, for having subscribed). I'd grab it after school and just start reading from the beginning. After dinner I'd have to fork it over to Dad. Next day after school I'd pick up where I left off. And so on until I had finished, usually the day before the next issue arrived.
In my 20s I got my own subscription, but like the author I dropped it sometime in the late 1970s. It was right around the time that Superman made the cover on the 50th anniversary of his creation.
The old Time made a young lad such as I want to know. The later Time made the mature me realize there was much that simply was not worth knowing. The current Time, I gather, has prompted most serious adults to turn away, mumbling to themselves: Who the hell cares?
SLG | 5.5.09 @ 9:40AM
Son/sam (above) keyed in on the appropriate word, "arrogant." I cancelled Time AND Newsweek subscriptions 30-some years ago.
Stayed with USN≀ mostly because of John Leo's column -- wasn't available in other sites then. Hadn't bothered to re-up since his departure, and wasn't aware of their demise.
No, I rely on a variety of websites and a little Fox, some talk-radio, and reading between the lines of other media. That said, it's appalling the ignorance of the population -- but, given the educational system (or the lack thereof), what else is new...?
Appleby| 5.5.09 @ 10:16AM
I still buy the odd Newsweek or Time magazine, when they have a particularly hysterical cover story that I sense will be even funnier in another 20 years. I have a large plastic bin full of magazines starting in the mid 1950s that predict dark and terrible things within definable timelines that in most cases passed uneventfully or without the doom and/or gloom predicted. (I have a 1950s era Life Magazine that predicts that telephones will never be available in individual homes because there are not enough women in the world to operate all the switchboards that would be needed.) The ten-year forecast magazines of Forbes that used to come out at the Zero Years (which they imagined were the beginning of the next decade) are the funniest, particularly the one predicting the 1980s. I have the Newsweek issue on Global Cooling from the 1970s, and the Population Bomb issue that states unequivocally that we have all starved to death in 1985. I also saved the Swine Flu Hissy Fit from the last time too -- the epidemic that killed one (1) American, which was 32 fewer than the vaccine killed.
This is really the only use that such magazines are anymore -- a snapshot of the falliability of human beings, however erudite, to predict the future with any degree of certainty. It's quite a consolation to dip in and see that nothing they are screaming about today is likely to happen either.
1Freeman| 5.5.09 @ 10:45AM
Despite their own propaganda America is not primarily a liberal basket of brainwashed idiots. You can tell the world in writing that you are the majority (following the methodology of Chairman [dictator and murderer] Mao with his little red book) but the truth is America is a Christian and free society. We like our freedom and don't really like paying for a magazine, like USA today, Newsweek, and most of the other Time-Warner publications, telling us we are stupid and need to think like we are told. MONEY TALKS and these magazines are failing and will fail as long as they follow the road of a left-wing propaganda machine. Americans are not like the uneducated masses of early 19th century China. We see what you are doing and, frankly, we don't have to pay for it.
wvwisdom| 5.5.09 @ 12:06PM
Time's demise was delayed for years by the brilliance and wisdom of the late Henry Grunwald. Read his book One Man's America to remember the good old days.
SLG| 5.5.09 @ 12:28PM
Oh, neglected to mention another (formerly good) publication which has really hit-the-skids and bowed-down to the leftist/greenie propaganda machine, National Geographic.
Cancelled them too -- a pox upon their solar-powered household too!
sestamibi| 5.5.09 @ 1:07PM
I started my subscription to Time at the age of 13 back in 1964, and only force of habit kept me going long past its point of irrelevancy (sometime in the late 70's) for over 30 years.
The cover story of the first issue I received was the choice of Martin Luther King as Man of the Year. The cover of the last issue I received in 1994 was O. J. Simpson mug shot. That says quite a bit about the changes in America, doesn't it?
JWM| 5.5.09 @ 1:19PM
I think the print media has become much to enamoured of liberal theology: collectivism; situational ethics; immorality; and the invention of 'new rights" while derogating those actually written in our constitution.
I once subscribed to three daily newspapers; and four weekly newsmagazines. I now subscribe to none of the above. If I wish to be bomarded with radical leftist claptrap I can turn on almost any TV station including MTV and HBO ( which I resently cancelled).
As surely as if they put a gun to thier heads and pulled the trigger, the print media has comitted suicide. That's why next week the FCc is meeting to decide upon "diversity" in the broadcast media. "Diversity" means only radical leftist media may attend. We are sprinting as fast as we can to a Cuba-style democracy. One party, one view, and one prison for all.
Anna Mac| 5.5.09 @ 2:08PM
I still get one auto rag and a grandiose sporting mag both of which will be allowed to expire. The auto rag seems to forget who is actually buying cars and it is certainly not the hippy assistant professor making 50 Gs in a major metropolitan area. The sporting mag is probably one of the best magazines consistently I've read. They even hosted "W's" Secretary of the Interior for an even-handed debate with one of the Kennedy loons which was extraordinary for the genre. The last three elections diminished my patience for the constant and mindless debasing of all things American so ridding oneself of the magazines reduces the noise level.
CPAZULE| 5.5.09 @ 3:06PM
The same cultural forces that changed most of TV from hard news, to entertainment, and then finally to tabloid journalism, also have ruined Newsweek and Time. Unfortunately, I see some of the same effects creeping onto the internet, in as much as at one time the internet was all reading, but more and more I feel the internet is becoming video driven. Reason? You are often forced to watch a commercial before being able to watch a video on the internet news.
Bram| 5.5.09 @ 3:41PM
I haven't gone out of my way to read Time in at least 15 years. I have seen their ridiculous covers in various waiting rooms over the years. Silly leftist ideas like Global Warming are presented as fact with dire warnings.
National Geographic is going the same way unfortunately.
D Jones| 5.5.09 @ 5:05PM
Newsweek is contemplating becoming a "shaper of thought"? So, basically, they are going to transform from a magazine that at least says they are reporting the news and just admit that they are a bunch of slinking Obama lickspittles? Nothing will change except the stated purpose of the magazine.
Kevin| 5.5.09 @ 8:21PM
There are still some great magazines to read:
* National Review
* The Economist (sometimes with gritted teeth)
Both assume the reader is not an idiot, and proceed from that point forward.
colinsky| 5.5.09 @ 9:43PM
I grew up in the 50s and although Time and Life were very important publications, I was always put off by their obvious slant. Their power was demonstrated in 1968(?) when Henry Luce decided to go against the VietNam war, and published an issue with big photos of all (100?) US soldiers killed the previous week.
Leah| 5.5.09 @ 11:23PM
Yes, Kevin, I agree and would add THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD and maybe there are some I'm not aware of. But I'd still rather read the print editions, turning the pages by lamplight in a comfy chair rather than sitting in front of a computer. I certainly hope these continue long into the future.
Robert Nowall| 5.6.09 @ 3:52AM
I still get Time Magazine, though these days, mostly, I turn to their obituary page and just read that. Even then, it's not free of politics---a recent obituary on actor Ron Silver failed to mention his, shall we say, more recent political activities and opinions.
I let my subscription to Newsweek lapse---I never read the sorry thing anymore, and I disliked the Obama religious iconography that appeared on its cover. Ostensibly, my subscription expired in early March...yet, yesterday, they "dealt me another one" and I have no idea when---or if---it will come to a stop.
Howard| 5.6.09 @ 8:44AM
I was a regular reader of Time and U.S. News during the Sixties and Seventies. They were serious magazines that were designed to provide some analysis to events. They were not newspapers or opinion writers. U.S. News was more conservative, and had no book reviews and popular culture pieces. The country was much different, just as the political parties and every other institution were different from today. They were more Main Street, Protestant, middle of the road. While there was a lot wrong with that era, there was more of a consensus, and clearer road maps, so to speak.
Time today is candy corn; sweet, fluffy, insignificant.
Sue| 5.6.09 @ 1:19PM
I grew up reading the Wall Street Journal and our local paper. The Journal had the best editorials (pro and con) covering all types of issues. I canceled USN&WLD; REPORT and wrote letters advising why. I couldn't take the liberalism being presented as "truth." All I've ever wanted in a magazine are the facts. I'll draw my own conclusions.
I, too, have canceled National Geographic and my husband just now took all of the back issues to the Goodwill. It had become a voice for the left on global warming (a.k.a. climate change), oil and gas issues, racism and politics, etc. All I want are the facts with NO SLANT, and I'll make up my own mind. That's what the liberals are afraid of. We'll use our own minds to influence policies of the government.
I now subscribe (purchase) National Review, The Weekly Standard, and Townhall (they came me a free book - Tyranny and Liberty. I still get the Wall Street, but have noticed a leftist creep in the editorial page, especially with Peggy Noonan. This is only with the named opinions, not the editorial board opinions from Gigot and Henninger.
Jeff| 5.6.09 @ 5:03PM
I got rid of publications like Time, Newsweek and newspapers years ago. They were of no value for me and only made me angry while reading them. I still get Sports Illustrated and ESPN the Magazine but I will not renew as they are practically worthless being filled with moronic opinions and comments. It’s like the writers are bored with the sports part of sports and have to get into the personal lives of everybody they can dig something up on and justify it by saying "well they get paid so much it's our right to know" (like the athletes were elected to public office). What it amounts to is a violation of privacy for the athlete and I don't want any part of it anymore.
I read online where I choose, when I choose, what I choose and get to comment when I choose, all for an internet access fee and nobody gets to force feed me anything I don't want. That's freedom, freedom we did not have in the past that we now have. If I want to find out that Isaac Newton was involved in more than what the history books say, I can (he was a great student and researcher of bible prophecy for instance). Right now I would say the internet is as close to a library of the universe as we can imagine until we ourselves are filled with the knowledge of God it will continue to expand. The internet was created for good and like all things can be prevented but at least we are free to choose the content we want when we want it. When a person can't find satisfactory content on the internet that person can create their own content on the World Wide Web. Thank God.
But please beware, this freedom to choose is being scrutinized but those who would like to control content and take away choice, if they can or if they are allowed to by us payers.
Ravis| 5.7.09 @ 1:10PM
That someone would analyze the decline of Time and not mention liberalism and multiculturalism says all you need to know about the decline in media quality and support today. Their writers can't even see a friggin elephant, or, worse, see it but won't acknowlege it.
Pingback| 5.7.09 @ 2:19PM
Twitted by FrankDM links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 3:02AM
This handbag is so unique, Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
Bridal Gowns
and I never see it’s sold in the stores, where did you get this one please?
Trackback| 12.24.09 @ 4:16AM
how to fix bad credit, on how to fix bad credit, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 1.15.10 @ 12:46PM
the funniest videos, on the funniest videos, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.14.10 @ 11:44AM
Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity? | ModernEducation.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ms office 2007| 3.17.10 @ 10:39PM
Office 2007 Pro
Office 2007 Ultimate