The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election. In our opinion, Time Magazine, basically admitting this was a crooked election.
There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.
The unabashedly liberal magazine admits that President Obama and his minions “exaggerated” a detail or two in order to bolster their case for going into Libya
Time Magazine just ran a story titled “Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya.”
It’s remarkable only in that the unabashedly liberal magazine admits that President Obama and his minions “exaggerated” a detail or two in order to bolster their case for going into Libya:
President Obama in Rio, praying that no one notices his Libyan "exaggerations"
President Barack Obama says he’s intervening to prevent atrocities in Libya. But details of behind-the-scenes debates at the White House show he’s going to war in part to rehabilitate an idea … the president and some of his advisers are so eager to rehabilitate the idea of preventive intervention that they’re exaggerating the violence they say they are intervening to prevent in Libya. “The effort to shoe-horn this into an imminent genocide model is strained,” says one senior administration official. That’s dangerous. Americans deserve an honest explanation when their leaders take them to war.
Obama and his aides know they are taking a big risk. “It’s a huge gamble,” says the senior administration official. The administration knows, for example, that al Qaeda, which has active cells in Libya, will try to exploit the power vacuum that will come with a weak or ousted Gaddafi.
Bush lied and people died, but Obama exaggerated and people were exterminated. Probably too long for a bumper sticker, huh?
Time magazine has yet written another article on the tres fashionable Michelle Obama. This one’s written by Kate Betts, who has, coincidentally, written a new book called Everyday Icon: Michelle Obama and the Power of Style.
Aaaarrrrrggggghhh! That’s the sound Howard Dean made when he lost the Iowa caucus and the sound we make every time we see Michelle Obama referred to as a fashion icon.
Last week’s Time magazine squeezed that horrid noise out of us again by publishing yet another article on the tres fashionable Michelle Obama. This one’s written by Kate Betts, who has, coincidentally, written a new book called Everyday Icon: Michelle Obama and the Power of Style.
Barack Obama pauses to consider the laughable thought that his wife is considered a fashion icon
Given her widespread reputation as one of the most stylish women ever to inhabit the White House, you might think Michelle Obama automatically belongs in the Madison-Kennedy lineage. But her background argues differently. No one can claim that Michelle Obama doesn’t know what it’s like to work or that she entered marriage because she didn’t get an education and lacked economic power of her own. It is plain that she has learned as much if not more from the example of Hillary Clinton as from the example of Jackie Kennedy.
What makes Obama exceptional is that she seems so at home in both camps. So at home that the whole debate about style and substance suddenly seems passé, an anachronism of the gender wars, a false dichotomy enforced by narrow-minded men and women at war with themselves. That Michelle Obama does not see style and substance as an either-or choice is a powerful statement that the underlying assumptions about women’s roles and images have changed. Embodying the confluence of substance and style, she has helped reconcile the long-standing antagonism between them. She has, in some sense, made them one and the same.
C’mon, Kate, any impartial observer would have to admit that Michelle Obama’s fashion sense is more akin to Teddy Kennedy’s than Jackie Kennedy’s.
We’ve looked through thousands of photos of Jackie Kennedy and we cannot find one – not one – in which she looks less stylish than Michelle Obama does in any of these photos.
We’ve chronicled the First Lady’s faux pas before, but Time and Kate force us to present this additional evidence.
We’ve come up with a funny headline or two in our time, but our best efforts pale in comparison to the one on this week’s Time magazine. “Why Obama Loves Reagan. And what he’s learned from him” may be the funniest ten words ever written in the English language.
We’ve come up with a funny headline or two in our time, but our best efforts pale in comparison to the one on this week’s Time magazine. “Why Obama Loves Reagan. And what he’s learned from him” may be the funniest ten words ever written in the English language. (And let’s not even get into Time’s use of the heart symbol in a sad, dated attempt to be relevant nor the strange PhotoShopping that makes Reagan’s left arm appear to be about four feet long.)
Yes, America, according to yuckmeisters over at Time magazine Ronald Reagan is Obama’s role model.
Time says, “Obama and Reagan share a number of gifts….” But, quite honestly, we’re at a bit of a loss as to what those gifts may be other than sharing a common DNA pattern.
According to Time, “Obama was clearly impressed by the way Reagan had transformed Americans’ attitude about government.” Hint, President Obama: He didn’t do it by spending trillions of dollars nor by taking over private industry nor by coddling government employee unions.
We also can’t recall Ronald Reagan hanging out with terrorists, nor appointing communists, socialists, and Marxists to government positions. And perhaps our memories are failing, but we can’t recall him appeasing our enemies and appalling our friends.
Where Ronaldus Magnus boldly stated, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” Barack Obama would have bowed to the Russian leader and borrowed money from China to provide him with additional bricks at no cost.
Nevertheless, Time just can’t get over the similarities between the two men, even quoting Douglas Brinkley as saying, “Obama is approaching the job in a Regananesque fashion.”
And then Time said, “We just flew into town. And, boy, are our arms tired. Thank you. Thank you very much. We’ll be here all week.”
Stop it, Time. You’re killin’ us. We can’t catch our breath. Our stomachs hurt from laughing.
Media Matters is at it again. They tried yet again to drum up a faux Fox News controversy and this one fell so flat that even Time Magazine leapt to the conservative cable news network’s defense.
Media Matters is at it again. They tried yet again to drum up a faux Fox News controversy and this one fell so flat that even Time Magazine leapt to the conservative cable news network’s defense.
Megyn Kelly really has nothing to do with this story, but we like looking at pictures of her
An internal Fox memo told its anchors to stop using the phrase “public option” when discussing ObamaCare and to begin using the phrase “government option.” Media Matters got its hands on that memo and was shocked – shocked, we tell you – by that supposedly blatant manipulation of the truth.
Hard as this may be to believe, Time magazine – liberal Time magazine – offered up this defense of Fox:
Here’s what Kurtz and Media Matters fail to note: Most Americans did not understand what the “public option” was. The term, in fact, seemed almost intentionally non-descriptive. Scores of journalists asked me during the health care debate to explain to them what the public option was – and these were folks interested in the news and paying attention to the issue.
The public option would have been a government-run insurance plan some Americans could have purchased. It would have been supported by premiums with no government subsidization and would be been purely voluntary. Like Medicare, the reimbursements paid by the public option would have been set by the government. Also like Medicare, the plan would not have needed to turn a profit, making it cost less than private insurance. It would have therefore provided tough competition for private insurers and pushed down premiums throughout the marketplace.
There’s a reason they call themselves Media Matters and not Truth Matters.
Mark Halperin: “Is it hyperbolic to say the Democratic Party is in the midst of a nervous breakdown? I have been covering national politics since 1988, and I don’t remember a situation quite like this.”
Mark Halperin, senior political analyst at Time magazine and no conservative, stares reality right square in the face and doesn’t much like what he sees:
Mark Halperin may have a nervous breakdown watching the Democrat Party's nervous breakdown
Is it hyperbolic to say the Democratic Party is in the midst of a nervous breakdown? I have been covering national politics since 1988, and I don’t remember a situation quite like this. The signs of a crack-up are everywhere. Democrats still think they can somehow win a news cycle by demonizing John Boehner. Chuck Schumer goes on the Senate floor and suggests Democrats are getting the same political mileage out of “millionaires tax” that Republicans have gotten over the years from using “death tax.” Politico has a story with blind quotes from Hill Democrats who are furious that the White House isn’t using some sort of mythical leverage over Republicans to extract concessions in exchange for extending all the Bush tax cuts — including continuing to try to trade for DADT and the Dream Act (rather than things dealing with jobs). Two members in good standing of the Professional Left — moveon and the PCCC — are spending its members’ money on TV ads demanding that the president exercise this same mythical leverage to stand up to the GOP. Democrats are understandably — and largely justified in being — frustrated that they lost an election based on Republicans defending tax cuts for the wealthy that are only expiring because of a budget gimmick championed by George Bush — and based on criticism of their apparent lack of concern over the deficit, by a party that has shown no past or current seriousness about deficit reduction and the hard choices involved. Losing those political fights was as inexplicable as it was hard for the Democrats. Maybe that’s why Thursday seemed to have donkeys melting down all over the place.
We’re not sure it’s a nervous breakdown. Einstein said, “The definiton of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Based on that, you may need a different diagnosis, Dr. Halperin.
There seems to be a bit of a culture war going on at Time magazine. First it praised a novelist and his novel, a work containing what has to be one of the most disgusting sexual passages ever written in a work of “literature.” Then its online Newsfeed service mocked that praise.
There seems to be a bit of a culture war going on at Time magazine. First it praised a novelist and his novel, a work containing what has to be one of the most disgusting sexual passages ever written in a work of “literature.” Then its online Newsfeed service mocked that praise.
American novelist, yes. Great is questionable.
Here’s how the magazine reviewed Jonathan Franzen’s novel Freedom on August 12, 2010:
Franzen isn’t the richest or most famous living American novelist, but you could argue — I would argue — that he is the most ambitious and also one of the best. His third book, The Corrections, published in 2001, was the literary phenomenon of the decade. His fourth novel, Freedom, will arrive at the end of August. Like The Corrections, it’s the story of an American family, told with extraordinary power and richness.
Hey, based on that review you might assume that Freedom is one hell of a novel. Yet there seems to be disagreement about that even within the Time family. On Friday, its online Newsfeed website said:
Jonathan Franzen has been lavished with praise — and if TIME says he’s good, he must be — so NewsFeed was ever so slightly disappointed to learn that he’s been nominated for the tongue-in-cheek prize, dished out by the Literary Review for — ahem — the most embarrassing passage of sexual description in a novel.
Our only dispute with Literary Review is that they deem the passage merely “embarrassing.” No. Accidentally leaving your fly open in public is embarrassing. Intentionally writing, in fact, taking nine years to carefully craft every word of this novel is not embarrassing, it’s an indictment of the author and any magazine that praises it.
Newsfeed notes that “Freedom, which is ostensibly about the breakdown of an American family, was singled out by judges for a depiction of a ‘phone sex’ encounter.”
CONTENT ALERT: The following passage from Freedom is graphic, disgusting and, considering that it took nine years to write, pretty poorly written. We are taking the liberty of italicizing and dyslexia-izing several words not because we want to censor it, but because we don’t want Google’s algorithyms to tag us as a porn site.
OK. Ready? Here’s the offending passage with key words italicized and dyslexia-ized.
One afternoon, as Connie described it, her excited lcitoirs grew to be eight inches long, a protruding pencil of tenderness with which she gently parted the lips of his pneis and drove herself down to the base of its shaft. Another day, at her urging, Joey described to her the sleek warm neatness of her utrds as they slid from her anus and fell into his open mouth, where, since these were only words, they tasted like excellent dark chocolate.
Literary Review said that Franzen exhibits a “propensity for innuendo which comes over a bit Benny Hill.” We say that is an insult to Benny Hill.
The tongue-in-cheek (perhaps a poor choice of words in this case) prize is awarded to ”draw attention to the crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel, and to discourage it.”
Is it a sign that we’re making progress in the culture war when the online edition of Time attacks the print edition of Time for praising this author and this novel? Or is the very existence of this novel a sign that we’re losing ground?
Writing in Time, which used to be a news magazine, Joe Klein hammered away at the old liberal line that average Americans just aren’t smart enough to know what is good for them. He complains that “There is something profoundly diseased about a society that idolizes its ignoramuses and disdains its experts.”
Writing in Time, which used to be a news magazine, Joe Klein hammered away at the old liberal line that average Americans just aren’t smart enough to know what is good for them.
He complains that “There is something profoundly diseased about a society that idolizes its ignoramuses and disdains its experts.”
Time's Joe Klein is your social and intellectual superior. And don't you forget it.
Ignoramuses, apparently, are anyone Joe Klein doesn’t like, including Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, Ron Johnson and, of course, Sarah Palin, who Klein dismisses as “Our leading exemplar of ignorant authenticity.”
What is it about these people that causes Klein to treat them with such disdain? Believe it or not, it’s the fact that have committed the unforgivable liberal sin of being “certifiably non-elite.”
So who does Klein feel represents the elite and the “experts?” Obviously, the people who populate the current administration.
Apparently, the ability to scam a large number of people is a prerequisite to being considered what Klein calls a “card-carrying member of the elites.” Witness Klein’s adoration of former car czar turned financial swindler Steve Rattner, who has been fined $5 million “…and banned him from finance, for a time, because he and his partners apparently attempted to bribe major pension funds in New York to invest with them.”
In waxing eloquent about Rattner, Klein says, “Rattner is a journalist turned investment banker, an Ivy Leaguer, a denizen of Manhattan’s happiest haunts and of summers on Martha’s Vineyard, vacation spot of choice for Democratic Presidents. He did a fine job as Barack Obama’s auto czar; the GM and Chrysler bailouts seem to be working brilliantly, saving thousands upon thousands of good American jobs. I know Steve pretty well; I’ve had dinner at his house; we’ve had good conversations; our kids have played together.”
The left, of course, fails to realize that average Americans correctly consider Klein’s vaunted elites to be snobs who incorrectly consider themselves far better than the unwashed masses.
We would hope that after November 2 articles about elite politicians are of the “Hey, whatever happen to all those elite politicians?” variety.
Everyone at those upper East side cocktail parties thinks a mosque at Ground Zero is just a dandy idea, so that must mean everyone supports it.
Covers like this demonstrate just how out of touch the Eastern media elite is with the rest of America.
Everyone at those upper East side cocktail parties thinks a mosque at Ground Zero is just a dandy idea, so that must mean everyone supports it.
What’s that? Polls show that more than 60% of all Americans are against it? Piffle. Those are just the little people beyond the Hudson. And their opinions don’t count.
Here is a candid moment on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show when Mika Mxyzptlk asked Time editor Rick Stengel if the magazine’s latest issue would cover the Joe Sestak story.
There’s nothing more revealing than those candid moments when libs are caught with his pants down (no Barney Frank reference intended).
In this case, we’re referring to the candid moment on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show when Mika Mxyzptlk asked Time editor Rick Stengel if the magazine’s latest issue would cover the Joe Sestak story.
Stengel was baffled. He stuttered. He stammered. He tried to fake it until Mika cattle prodded the inner recesses of his mind by saying, “The Sestak controversy. Joe Sestak.”
“Oh, Sestak.” Stengel said. “No. No. There is not. There is not.”
Time isn’t interested in this story. And you shouldn’t be, either. Barack Obama said so.
Magazines like Newsweek and Time are dying. And left wing weekly news magazines are dying faster than most. The New York Times, of all places, reports the story.
Perhaps more people would buy Time if they didn't do the same story every week
Alert the death panel. Magazines are dying. And left wing weekly news magazines are dying faster than most.
The New York Times, of all places, reports the story:
Magazines’ newsstand sales plummeted in the last six months of 2009, and subscriptions dropped as well.
Newsstand sales for the 472 consumer titles in the United States measured by the Audit Bureau of Circulations declined 9.1 percent, to 39.3 million, in the last half of 2009 versus the same period a year earlier, the organization reported this morning. That follows an 11.12 percent decline from July through December 2007 compared to July through December 2008.
Some of the well-known titles with dramatic single-copy declines included W, down 41.7 percent to about 25,000 for an average issue; Newsweek, down 41.3 percent to about 62,000 (Newsweek had decreased the number of copies on sale, noted a spokesman) ; SmartMoney, down 37 percent to about 26,000; Time, down 34.9 percent to about 90,000; Good Housekeeping, down 30.7 percent to 395,000; and Redbook, down 30.1 percent to 126,000.
Hilarious. Newsweek says its circulation decreased because they reduced the number of copies on sale. We’re no publishing geniuses, but it seems to us that they may have that sequence of events reversed.
Last night Barbara Walters crowned The Most Beautiful First Lady in History as The Most Fascinating Person of 2009. What’s fascinating to us that Walters does not know that Michelle Obama is a democrat.
Last night Barbara Walters crowned The Most Beautiful First Lady in History as The Most Fascinating Person of 2009. What’s fascinating to us that Walters does not know that Michelle Obama is a democrat.
Earlier in the evening she did an interview with Bill O’Reilly and she made a point (watch minute 5:45 in the video above) to O’Reilly that there are no democrats on this list.
But maybe she’s right. To be fair, she didn’t say there were no socialists on the list.
What possessed Time magazine to publish a cover story titled “Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck bad for America?” The magazine, it seems, had a bit of trouble reconciling the Glenn Beck of 2008 with the Glenn Beck of 2009. Although his listeners and viewers probably don’t.
What possessed Time magazine to publish a cover story titled “Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck bad for America?”
The magazine, it seems, had a bit of trouble reconciling the Glenn Beck of 2008 with the Glenn Beck of 2009. Although his listeners and viewers probably don’t.
Last year, shortly after the election, Beck spoke with TIME’s Kate Pickert, and he didn’t sound very scared back then. Of Obama’s early personnel decisions, he said, “I think so far he’s chosen wisely.” Of his feelings about the President: “I am not an Obama fan, but I am a fan of our country … He is my President, and we must have him succeed. If he fails, we all fail.” Of the Democratic Party: “I don’t know personally a single Democrat who is a dope-smoking hippie that wants to turn us into Soviet Russia.” Of the civic duty to trust: “We’ve got to pull together, because we are facing dark, dark times. I don’t trust a single weasel in Washington. I don’t care what party they’re from. But unless we trust each other, we’re not going to make it.”
What’s the mystery, Time? It sounds a lot like what he says on his show today.
In fact, when a lot of people were extremely unhappy with Obama’s victory and were preaching hatred, Glenn Beck was a class act, urging restraint. Just one of those annoying “fact” thingies that Time couldn’t quite squeeze into its four-page article.
It should be noted that Time ran a close race with Newsweek in the last year to determine which publication could kiss the Barack Obama’s ass more thoroughly. Time squeaked out a narrow win by pasting the President’s mug on it’s cover 14 times compared to Newsweek’s even dozen.
Rumor has it that the magazine considered changing its name to The “O” but that was taken. The One just sounded a bit pretentious even for a publication that’s really pretentious. And “Full of Crap” though honest, just wouldn’t sell.
Looks like they’re stuck with Time.
Back in 2005, a leading gay publication called The Advocate named Kerry Pacer its “Person of the Year.” She has gone straight and had a baby.
Kerry Pacer, former lesbian and current non-lesbian appears to be channeling actress Anne Heche
Now this is what you call an inconvenient truth. A very inconvenient truth.
Back in 2005, a leading gay publication called The Advocate named Kerry Pacer its “Person of the Year.”
Pacer, who was just 17 at the time, was featured on the cover of the magazine’s December issue. She was awarded the prestigious honor for her valiant struggle for a “gay-straight alliance” while she attended White County High School in Cleveland, Georgia.
Sad to say, Pacer has now discovered she’s straight. The Washington Blade, another gay publication, reports:
“…today she lives with her boyfriend, a construction worker, and their baby daughter, Marley, who turns 1 year old on Saturday.
“Well, she’s the most beautiful blue-eyed girl in the world and everybody tells me that so I’m not just being biased, I swear,” Pacer said with a laugh.
“I love every minute of motherhood. It’s been a very big challenge, however I love it. I’ve just been trying to work and go to school and take care of my family,” she said.
Oh, those crazy kids. You just never know what they’re going to do next. Nor who.
Ellen DeGeneres, John Travolta, Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putin, Helen Keller and Simon Cowell. Just a few of the unimportant people in the Time Magazine internet poll. Time Magazine intentionally designed an internet poll to prove that internet polling is stupid. Or they intentionally designed an internet poll to prove that they themselves are stupid. Maybe both.
Here’s how Time describes the results:
In a stunning result, the winner of the third annual TIME 100 poll and new owner of the title World’s Most Influential Person is moot. The 21-year-old college student and founder of the online community 4chan.org, whose real name is Christopher Poole, received 16,794,368 votes and an average influence rating of 90 (out of a possible 100) to handily beat the likes of Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin and Oprah Winfrey. To put the magnitude of the upset in perspective, it’s worth noting that everyone moot beat out actually has a job.
Time continued:
Undoubtedly, many people will question moot’s worthiness of the title World’s Most Influential Person. TIME.com managing editor Josh Tyrangiel says moot is no less deserving than previous title holders like Nintendo video-game designer Shigeru Miyamoto (2007) and Korean pop star Rain (2006). “I would remind anyone who doubts the results that this is an Internet poll,” he says. “Doubting the results is kind of the point.”
Time’s circulation is plummeting. And they seem to think that the way to reverse that trend is to conduct and promote a poll that they themselves admit is meaningless.
What the hell. It’s an improvement over just plain making crap up.
Time magazine’s report on Obama’s First 100 Days begins with a swoon: “Obama’s start has been the most impressive of any President since F.D.R.” At that point we fell asleep faster than Obama’s economic advisor Lawrence Summers.
Does anybody really read Time anymore? Of course not. That was a rhetorical question. Their “news” is always a week old. People must look at it for the exciting pictures, like the behind-the-scenes photo essay consisting of 77 dynamic shots of The One contemplating paintings, moving a chair, and a dandy close-up of his healthy snack consisting of cheese, crackers and a pear. (Yawn.)
Lawrence Summers demonstrates that the stimulus plan is somewhat less than stimulating. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Sorry. Dozed off at the keyboard. If you manage to get through the story, let us know if there was anything “newsworthy.”
Any guesses as to who will be Time’s next Man of the Year? For the next four years. Maybe eight.
There was a frequently-recurring scene in old TV show “Kung Fu” where Master Po would dispense the mystical wisdom of the ages to “Young Grasshopper.”
That may have been the inspiration for the article “How to Save Your Newspaper” in the current issue of Time in which the magazine graciously advises the newspaper industry how to get its head out of its collective butt.
We consider it almost zen-like that Time is able to solve problems for others from which they themselves suffer. Kind of like Master Po and Little Grasshopper.
You see, Time’s circulation hovered around the 4.0 million mark for the last decade, but precipitously plunged to just 3.4 million in 2007. As of June, 2008 the magazine’s base circulation sits at just 3,250,000. They’ve also discontinued publication of its 60-year old Canadian edition.
We’d like to dispense a little zen-like advice to Time. But we’re a little busy here with our in-depth analysis of international events.
On Thursday, February 5, Time Magazine said Republican critics of the President’s “stimulus” plan are like the geese that caused the crash of US Airways Flight 1549.
“It’s hard to take Republican leaders too seriously when they criticize the recovery plans for the economy; it’s sort of like those geese criticizing the evacuation plans for US Airways Flight 1549.”
On Tuesday, February 10, Joy Behar, one of the harpies on ABC’s The View, liked the line so much that she decided to “borrow” it. Problem is, Behar delivered her version of the line almost incoherently.
“You know, Obama’s like that pilot Sullenberg…berger, who, you know, and the Republicans are like the geese that flew into the, you know, it’s like they’re stopping the plane.”
Hard to believe that someone paid to express her opinions expresses them so poorly.
Remember that scene in “Chinatown” where Jack Nicholson roughs up Faye Dunaway until she reveals the identity of the mysterious young girl?
He slaps her and she says, “She’s my sister.” He slaps her again and she says, “My daughter.” They ping pong back and forth until Dunaway breaks down and admits the girl is daughter and her sister, the result of an incestuous relationship with her father.
Looks we have another incestuous Chinatown situation on our hands in Washington, DC. Turns out Callie Shell, a Time Magazine photographer, has been working simultaneously for Team Obama, snapping official White House photos.
We wish someone would slap Callie around a little just to see if she’ll crack as easily as Faye Dunaway did.
Slap. “I’m a completely impartial journalist.”
Slap. “I’m a biased hack.”
Slap. “I’m a completely impartial journalist.”
Slap. “I’m a biased hack.”
Slap. “Stop slapping me, wimpy boy. I already told you I was a biased hack.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MMXvU4O9OANoted physicist and amateur psychologist Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
The Washington Post reports that Time and Newsweek are getting “smaller, more serious, more opinionated and, though they are loath to admit it, more liberal. They are pursuing a more elite audience, in print and on the Web, abandoning the old Henry Luce notion of catering to the masses. It is nothing less than a survival strategy.”
Time says it was marginally profitable last year, but Newsweek lost money. Time has reduced its guaranteed circulation to advertisers from 4.1 million to 3.25 million. Newsweek lowered its from 3.1 million to 2.6 million and is considering lowering it again.
Although we cannot verify it, we’ve been told the attached video may have been shot during a recent editorial board meeting at Time. Or Newsweek. Take
your choice.
Remember that scene in “Chinatown” where Jack Nicholson roughs up Faye Dunaway until she reveals the identity of the mysterious young girl?